PRIVATE BUSINESS

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
	That Gillian Merron and Joan Ryan be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Alan Campbell and Tony Cunningham be added to the Committee.— [Liz Blackman.]

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

HIV/AIDS

Sandra Gidley: What progress has been made towards reaching the millennium development goals on HIV/AIDS.

Hilary Benn: There has been progress in the fight against AIDS. More resources are now available, and the number of Africans receiving treatment has risen eightfold—albeit from a very low base—since 2003. But on current trends, the AIDS millennium development goal will not be met. What is needed is clear: countries should draw up ambitious and comprehensive plans for treatment and care, fight stigma and promote prevention; and donors must ensure that no credible, sustainable country plan goes unfunded.

Sandra Gidley: The Secretary of State will be aware that the US programme known as the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief spends only 20 per cent. of its funding on prevention, at least a third of which has to be spent on abstinence before marriage programmes. What is his Department doing to address this imbalance?

Hilary Benn: We take a different approach and we are very frank about doing so. Abstinence works for those who can abstain from sex, but not everybody can, and my view is very simple: people should not die because they have sex. That is why, as part of our programme, we promote the distribution of information and condoms, so that people have the means to protect themselves from dying of this disease, which is preventable if they take the right steps.

Chris McCafferty: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that HIV prevention programmes—particularly those that link HIV/AIDS with sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes, services for young people and the empowerment of women—are re-emphasised at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly special session in New York?

Hilary Benn: Like many others, I am certainly looking forward to ensuring that that happens. One has to look at the fight against AIDS and the promotion of reproductive and sexual health together, because the two are entirely integral. I hope that my hon. Friend, in her role as a member of the all-party group dealing with this issue, can join us as part of the delegation. It is very important that we be well represented and link up with others to make precisely the point that she has put to the House today.

Andrew Mitchell: The whole House will be relieved that the Secretary of State was not caught up in the Prime Minister's botched reshuffle at the weekend. In view of the commitment made at Gleneagles last year to providing universal access by 2010 to treatment for AIDS—and of the reality that today one child is dying every minute from AIDS—will the Secretary of State meet pharmaceutical industry representatives to encourage them to develop paediatric drugs for children with HIV, particularly given that there is no market for, or demand for, such drugs in the west?

Hilary Benn: I am certainly happy to meet anyone at any time. Following the points that were made at previous International Development questions on this very matter, officials have put down as the main item on the agenda of the next meeting with pharmaceutical companies paediatric diagnostics and paediatric versions of antiretroviral therapies. As the House is probably aware, there has been a lack of research in this area because AIDS has not been a disease of children in the west, which is where the investment went into. Getting the pharmaceutical companies to make that investment in research is a matter of urgency, so that there are appropriate treatments for children who are HIV positive and in need of treatment.

David Borrow: Have my right hon. Friend and his Department had an opportunity to examine the antiretroviral programme in Botswana, where more than half of those who need such drug treatments are receiving them? Indeed, the aim is that the programme will provide 100 per cent. coverage within the next couple of years. Does he think that there are lessons to be learned from the experience of Botswana?

Hilary Benn: There certainly are lessons to be learned, not least from countries that are making progress in getting more antiretroviral treatment to those who need it. The biggest problem is simply a lack of capacity. The price of drugs is important, and their availability and having the right therapies matters enormously. But in the end, the problem will not be addressed if there are no nurses to do the tests, no doctors to say when antiretroviral drugs need to be prescribed, and no clinics, or clinics that people cannot afford to visit because they charge fees. The central issue in the fight against AIDS, and in dealing with all the other diseases that claim so many lives every day in developing countries, is working as hard as we can to ensure increased health service capacity, because on that bedrock progress will be built.

Susan Kramer: The Secretary of State will be well aware of the link between sexual exploitation and the spread of HIV/AIDS. In the light of that, what safeguards has the Department for International Development attached to its funding—whether bilateral or through multilateral agencies—to ensure that aid programmes are not used as a tool for sexual exploitation, which, as Save the Children has recently shown, is the practice in Liberia?

Hilary Benn: I share the concern that the hon. Lady expresses at the end of her question about the report put out by Save the Children yesterday on what seems to have been happening in Liberia. Sadly, that is not the first occasion when UN peacekeeping troops appear to have been involved in sexual exploitation: the House will be aware of the problems that came to light in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is essential that organisations involved in peacekeeping and development assistance ensure that that does not happen, and, if it does come to light, that those responsible are called to account.
	I will reflect on the hon. Lady's first point about ensuring that we have appropriate procedures in place, but we work hard to ensure that the money that we give is used for the purpose for which it is intended and is not used as a way of exploiting young women. One has to recognise, however, that a high proportion of those who are HIV positive are young women, and that reflects fundamentally their lack of power in the societies in which they live.

Tom Clarke: What expectations does my right hon. Friend have for the forthcoming high level talks at the UN in June, which I understand are meant to put the millennium development goals back on track? Who will represent the UK?

Hilary Benn: I will lead the delegation at the United Nations General Assembly special session. We hope that the special session will adopt a plan that will enable us to see how we may move from where the world is today to achieving the "all by 2010" targets that the Gleneagles summit agreed last year and which were endorsed by the UN millennium summit. That will involve countries having plans; the resources being available and the capacity to put those plans into effect; the availability of drugs, doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals; the fight against stigma; and community support to help people to tackle the problem. The global steering committee has put forward its proposals, and the UK played an important part in co-chairing that. The African Union meeting in Abuja last week adopted an ambitious set of targets and, when we get to New York, we will have to grapple with the issue of putting the right targets in place to reflect what countries themselves want to do and continuing to apply pressure on everybody in the system to ensure that we see progress.

James Clappison: I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the increase in the number of Africans receiving treatment and hope that much more progress will be made from the low base that he has described. As he has just said, there is a desperate need for more capacity, and more doctors and nurses, in Africa. What assessment does he make of the effect on treatment in Africa of the loss of 3,000 doctors and 37,000 nurses who have come to this country to work since 2000?

Hilary Benn: That undoubtedly has an effect and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Department of Health's code of practice. We could have a policy that banned doctors and nurses from certain developing countries from coming to work in the UK, but my view is that that would not be right. The right policy is to support developing countries in trying to address the reasons that force people with skills out of those countries. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, those reasons include poor pay, poor working conditions, lack of opportunity for career and professional development, and lack of chances to use the skills that people have gained. That links directly to the question of capacity. If capacity can be built and more resources can be put into health care expenditure, we can begin to change over time the drift of people away from the health services in Africa to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Burma

David Jones: What recent estimate he has made of the number of internally displaced people in Burma.

Richard Benyon: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of British aid to Burma; and if he will make a statement.

Gareth Thomas: The overwhelming majority of internally displaced people are found among ethnic groups in eastern Burma. The Thai-Burma Border Consortium has estimated the number of IDPs in eastern Burma as being at least 540,000. Despite the extremely difficult operating environment, a recent review of our programme in Burma concluded that the projects we had initiated were making good progress against their initial objectives.

David Jones: As the Minister says, eastern Burma is a frighteningly difficult area for aid workers to operate in, and only a few days ago there was news that a relief worker had been killed by a land mine that had been planted by the Burmese authorities to prevent escapees from returning to Burma at a later date. It is nevertheless essential that aid get through to the terrified people who are hiding in the Burmese jungle. What precise measures is the Minister taking with overseas Governments to ensure that that aid gets through?

Gareth Thomas: I am sure that the whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in his implicit recognition of the courage of the aid workers working with internally displaced people in eastern Burma. I certainly do. We currently provide some £500,000 a year to the International Committee of the Red Cross to work with people who have lost their homes, and often their families, as a result of the human rights abuses and fighting taking place in Burma. In addition, we support the Thai-Burma Border Consortium, which provides help to people who have left Burma, because of the fighting.

Richard Benyon: The regime running Burma is clearly unfit to receive aid. What measures can the Government take to support the hard-pressed people of Burma, without propping up the murderous thugs who run the country?

Gareth Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the regime in Burma, and that is one of the reasons why we do not provide aid through devices such as that Government's budget. Our programme in Burma is worth £8 million, and it works with other organisations such as the ICRC, international non-governmental organisations and various UN bodies on programmes to do with health, education and rural livelihoods. We want to make a difference for people who have been displaced by the fighting, and for those living on less than $1 a day.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that many people, including many Karen, have been living in camps on Thailand's border with Burma for generations. What is his Department doing to ease the circumstances in those camps to make it easier for those people to survive and get back into Burma at some stage?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to describe the very difficult situation facing many people who have left Burma and who are living in refugee camps in Thailand. One way that we can help directly is through our work with the Thai-Burma Border Consortium, and we have committed some £1.8 million to that work over the next three years. We also make representations to the Thai Government to make it easier for those refugees to seek work and move around freely in Thailand.

Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend accept that the activities of the Burmese Government against people such as the Karen amounts to genocide, as defined by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, since they destroy people and their way of life? He is right that we do not have much leverage on the Burmese Government, but will he at least begin to speak seriously to Governments with influence over the country, such as the Chinese Government, to make sure that they are aware of our great concern about what is taking place in Burma?

Gareth Thomas: I agree that it is clear that systematic human rights abuse is taking place on a very large scale in Burma. He is right that we in the UK do not have the substantial leverage needed to make an immediate difference. We work with our EU neighbours and through the UN to highlight the continuing human rights abuses. Successive UN resolutions have highlighted and condemned the human rights violations in Burma, and we have played a leading role in bringing the matter to the UN General Assembly in the past. We continue to press for it to be discussed in the UN Security Council, but it is true that a number of full members of that council do not yet agree that it should be placed on its formal agenda. We continue to work for a reversal of that situation.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister will be aware that religious persecution is one reason why people in Burma, and especially the Christian minority among some of the country's tribes, suffer displacement. Will he give the House details of the representations that his Department is making to the Burmese Government to protect the rights of religious minorities in Burma?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right that one element of the human rights abuse in Burma arises out of religious differences. The Christian minority suffers, as do members of the Muslim community and various other ethnic groups. We are working through our ambassador, the EU and the UN to try to highlight those human rights abuses. We continue to hope that the pressure will lead to a change by the Burmese Government.

John MacDougall: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the other issues that have been raised AIDS is a particular problem in Burma? What are the Government doing to combat it?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to say that as well as focusing on the needs of internally displaced people, we must recognise the needs of other vulnerable people in Burma. As Burma has the worst AIDS epidemic in Asia, we have continued to seek agreement with like-minded donors for a common fund to address AIDS, TB and malaria. We were disappointed that, owing to difficult operating circumstances, the global fund had to cease its operations, but we continue to work for the establishment of such a common fund so that we can scale up the assistance that we are already providing.

Andrew Mitchell: With further internal repression and killing reported from Burma and serious difficulties for up to 1 million internally displaced people in a country with close ties to Britain in the past, will the Minister reconsider his Department's decision not to give humanitarian aid to those displaced, in view of the decision by the Americans and the Canadians, as well as other European countries, that they will help? Will he at least consult the Governments of those countries to find out how they are helping and the level of monitoring and accountability they have secured?

Gareth Thomas: I do not accept the suggestion that we are not providing humanitarian aid; the vast bulk of our programme to Burma is humanitarian assistance. The specific issue to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers is support for cross-border work in the Karen state. As I have indicated, we already provide substantial assistance: £500,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross annually for its work in Burma, which helps internally displaced people, and the £1.8 million that we give for Burmese refugees based in Thailand. There are difficult issues involved in monitoring assistance work across borders, but we keep that under close review. We talk to other donors and balance the understandable demands for further assistance to meet the needs of internally displaced people with the need to provide assistance to other vulnerable members of the Burmese population.

Population Growth

Richard Ottaway: What assessment he has made of the impact of population growth on sustainable development; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: The world's population is anticipated to increase from 6.5 billion to 9 billion by 2050. Most of that growth will be in developing countries, particularly in towns and cities. It will undoubtedly put pressure on natural resources and services such as health and education.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will be aware of dozens of examples, in countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and, currently, China, where stabilising population growth results in improvements in their economy. The net result is sustainable development, with reductions in poverty and hunger and improvements in maternal health. Will he ensure that the principles of that success story are enshrined in his forthcoming White Paper?

Hilary Benn: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work in the all-party group and I very much welcome the hearing that it is undertaking into this important issue. He makes an important point. In addition to the examples he gave, in Bangladesh, over two decades, average family size decreased from seven to three and a half, in particular because couples could choose when to have children, which links to an earlier question. I can assure him that continuing to support reproductive and sexual health services for people is one of the ways in which we can help to address the question of the globe's growing population.

John Barrett: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to tackle population growth is to tackle poverty? High birth rates are often a desperate response in families suffering from poverty.

Hilary Benn: I agree completely. If people have more choice about family size, if they have better incomes and more confidence in the future, all the evidence from around the world—the whole process of development over the past 200 years—shows that as family wealth increases, average family size decreases, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Schools (Developing Countries)

Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on funding allocated to schools in developing countries.

Hilary Benn: The UK will spend some £8.5 billion on education in developing countries over the next 10 years. That long-term commitment will provide developing countries with predictable funding for 10-year investment plans to recruit and train more teachers, to get more pupils into and completing school, and to improve the quality of education. We will be pressing other wealthy countries to follow our lead to keep the promises that we made in 2005.

Andrew Miller: Over and above the fantastic work that is being done by my right hon. Friend, some amazing work is being done by young people from Cheshire. Has he seen my letter to him of 28 April, bringing to his attention the work of 12 young fire cadets who alone have raised £30,000 and who have been to Ghana to build a school themselves? That is the kind of leadership that we need for our young people. Will he engage with those young people and extend that scheme right across the country to help to match what he is doing in his Department?

Hilary Benn: I congratulate the fire cadets of the Cheshire fire service on the work that they are doing to build a school in Akrofu. I am sure that that experience will change the way they think about and see the world, as happens to most people who get the chance to go and visit. That is why the Government are also further extending the global schools partnership, which will allow more schools, more teachers and, over time, more pupils to benefit from that kind of involvement, not least because they will learn a great deal about what we and what children and young people in developing countries have to offer as well.

Alistair Burt: How does the Department for International Development intend to ensure that those children most marginalised from education—those orphaned by HIV/AIDS and those with disabilities—can benefit from the increased support? Will country plans include achievable and measurable targets to ensure that those children are included?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The most marginalised and disadvantaged group are, of course, disabled children. Unless disabled children are included in increasing primary enrolment, we will not achieve the universal primary education target by 2015. One of the things that we are doing in particular to help orphans and vulnerable children is targeting, as he will be aware, some of the money that we are using in the fight against AIDS to provide support and practical help to them, both through UNICEF and through country plans—for example, by helping to pay school fees where they still exist. So even though children have been orphaned and no longer have the care and love of their parents, they are at least able to continue to go to school.

Piara S Khabra: Will my right hon. Friend tell us the total number of children in India who have benefited from the funding for education given by DFID?

Hilary Benn: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall write to him with the current and most up-to-date figure, but a significant part of our programme in India is indeed, as he will be aware, supporting the universal primary education programme. There is still some way to go, which is why India represents DFID's largest single bilateral programme in the world.

Mark Simmonds: To achieve the millennium development goal of universal access to primary education, every sector in developing countries—state, private and other non-state actors—needs to be involved, particularly given that, as confirmed in the 2006 DFID annual report released yesterday, the targets to increase primary school enrolment and the ratio of girls to boys enrolled in schools are off track in both Africa and Asia. Many schools outside the state sector serve low-income families and outperform their state counterparts. What is DFID's strategy to encourage those non-state actors? How much of the £8.7 billion announced in April will go directly to schools and parents, to maximise enrolment?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the need to harness all the resources that are available to ensure that all those children go to school. That includes the voluntary sector and faith organisations, because, particularly in countries that are recovering from conflict, the only institutions that are still left standing are the Churches, the armed forces and, in some respects, the state, and we must consider all the means that are available to us. The real answer to his question is that it will depend on the plans that the countries themselves draw up, but if we are going to achieve that target by 2015, it is important that we draw on all the resources that are available to help to make it happen.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that achieving the millennium development goal of universal education is welcome, but that making education free does not make it compulsory and that, in many cases, it can lead to a loss of quality, with very large class sizes and poorly trained teachers? What is he doing to make sure that we not only deliver volume in education, but ensure the quality that achieves what is intended?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The school that I visited recently in Mozambique has 4,200 children and runs four shifts a day. Those in the last shift often have their education cut short because the lights go out, since the school cannot afford the electricity bill. There are holes in the roof, some children sit on the floor and class sizes of 70 and above. That demonstrates the need for more resources, more planning, more teachers, more classrooms, more books and more equipment. What developing countries need from us, as we play our part in helping them to achieve that goal, is money that they can rely on to plan, to put into their proposals and to add to the resources that they can raise, because that is the only way in which we are going to make progress.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nigel Waterson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 May.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of Lieutenant Commander Darren Chapman of the Royal Navy, Captain David Dobson of the Army Air Corps, Marine Paul Collins, Wing Commander John Coxen and Flight Lieutenant Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, who are missing, believed killed, following the tragic incident in Iraq on Saturday. We owe them and others who have lost their lives in Iraq a great debt of gratitude and we again pay tribute to the heroism, commitment and professionalism of our armed forces in the service of their country.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and join him in his condolences for those tragically killed in Iraq the other day.
	How concerned is the Prime Minister that only one in four of the electorate thinks he is doing a good job?

Tony Blair: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the end, the Government of this country is decided at a general election. There have been three; there was one a year ago. His party lost.

Phyllis Starkey: My constituent, Mr. Jonathan Downey, was one of the victims of the 7 July bombings in London. He was killed at the Edgware road station incident. His widow has been in touch with me about a number of issues relating to support for the victims' families. Soon after the event, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor suggested that special compensation would be made available to the families of victims of the London bombings. Is the Prime Minister in a position now to say when that additional help will be made available?

Tony Blair: I again express my condolences to my hon. Friend's constituent for the loss of her husband.
	I think that there is recognition that the nature of the attack on 7 July was wholly exceptional. For that reason, we have been looking to see what more we can do in terms of additional support for the victims and their families. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to announce details of that shortly.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the servicemen and women who died in Iraq. They were serving their country.
	Three weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about the crisis in children's hospitals. He said that everything was fine so can he explain why the Minister responsible for hospitals has resigned?

Tony Blair: The Minister for hospitals has certainly not resigned, as far as I am aware, in respect of anything to do with children's hospitals. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) did indeed ask me about children's hospitals and I explained that there were issues in respect of the payment-by-results tariff. Discussions are continuing between the hospitals that wrote to the Department of Health, and I hope that those discussions will result in a satisfactory conclusion.

David Cameron: The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) was the Minister for hospitals and she has resigned. I know that things are bad, but the Prime Minister ought to know who is actually in his Government. She said that the Government's reforms had resulted in the crisis at Alder Hey and her attempts to speak out had been overruled by No. 10.
	Last week, I asked about dangerous foreign criminals who were released instead of deported. We were told that there were 79 who had committed serious offences. Then we were told that there were 90. This week we are told that there are 150. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the number will not go up again?

Tony Blair: The number has gone up simply because as the police investigate each of the cases, the details change— [Interruption.] That is perfectly obvious, if one thinks about it for a moment. However, of the 1,000 cases of foreign national prisoners who were part of the backlog that had built up over a considerable time, three quarters have been considered. Almost 600 deportation orders have been given and about 30 deportations are already under way. There are 126 of those people in detention. We will continue to work through the backlog, as I explained before, but I might just state to the right hon. Gentleman that now, as a result of the changes that have been put in place, all cases are considered before release. As I explained to him last week, there is a quite separate issue with which we must also deal, which is, in the end, at the heart of the matter: we need to ensure that those people who are convicted of a serious criminal offence and become foreign prisoners are deported, not retained in this country.

David Cameron: If it is all going so well, why did the Prime Minister sack the Home Secretary? After three weeks of investigations, he still cannot tell us how many dangerous criminals who have committed serious offences are roaming the streets? Are not the crises in the health service and the criminal justice system symptoms of a Government who are paralysed? In the past three days, former Ministers have been queuing up to tell the Prime Minister that it is time to go. We have heard from the former Education Secretary, Pensions Secretary, terrorism Minister and local government Minister, and they have all said the same thing. Presumably the Prime Minister appointed them because of their judgment. Why does he think that he has lost their confidence?

Tony Blair: If I can just go back to deal with the two policy issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised— [Interruption.] Well, I know that he is not very comfortable with policy. Actually, because I thought that we might be debating these types of issues, I asked my staff to look up what policies he has. I have found two: one on children's clothes and one on chocolate oranges. Other than that, he does not seem to have any, so I am delighted to have a policy debate with him.
	On the health service, in respect of children's hospitals, there is an issue to do with payment by results and the tariff. At a meeting a few days ago we listened to the representations of the four hospitals that wrote to us, and we are satisfied that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. I might just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are putting more money into the health service than ever before and getting better results than ever before, but he opposed that additional investment.
	I have explained the situation regarding the foreign national prisoners to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said a moment or two ago, for the first time we now have in place a proper system that allows us to consider deportation prior to a prisoner's release. However, as I said last week—I repeat it—in my view, there should be an automatic presumption of deportation for anyone convicted of a serious criminal offence, and I hope that he agrees with that.

David Cameron: From that answer we can see that the Prime Minister will not even address the fact that he is losing the support of his party. He lives in a world best summed up by the analysis given to him about his local election results by the No. 10 planning committee. The leaked report said that
	"people were angry with Tony because they love him so much, and they are angry because they think he might go".
	I think that that is what they call the view from the bunker.
	Until a week ago, the Prime Minister was telling us that he would serve a full third term. Why did he change his mind?

Tony Blair: It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that I have no intention of debating that with him—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Frankly, there are probably enough lining up to do that already.
	What is interesting about this exchange is that policy is the one thing that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about. I agree that it has been a difficult time for the Government, but, in the end, it is policy—policies on the economy, on investment in our public services, on things like the minimum wage and lifting children and pensioners out of poverty, on overseas aid and, yes, on the environment, on which he has already changed the policy he had a few weeks ago—that will determine the fate of this Government and the decision of the electorate at the next general election.

David Cameron: The issue of how long the right hon. Gentleman stays in office is of key public interest. I remind him of the clearest pledge that he gave about this issue. He said:
	"A full term is a full term and that is what it means".
	The right hon. Gentleman said that when he went to Khartoum. Presumably he wanted to see the place where Gordon was murdered— [Laughter.] I am glad that I have put a smile on the face of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Will the Prime Minister unravel a mystery for us? Why does he not trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take over the Government now?

Tony Blair: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been rehearsing those lines all morning.  [ Interruption.] I think so. I thought that it was a little rehearsed.
	I simply issue an invitation to debate policy. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned two—one on the health service and one on law and order—but he is not really prepared to debate those matters. He is not the first Conservative leader either to call for or predict my departure. There were four others, but I am still here, and they are not.

David Cameron: There is hardly a politician in this place who is not predicting the right hon. Gentleman's departure. Has not the Prime Minister put himself in a Catch-22 situation? If he sets a timetable for leaving, he has told us that there will be paralysis. If he refuses to set a timetable, his Government will remain paralysed. Is it not becoming increasingly clear that he should go—and go soon?

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that kind advice, which I am sure was meant in the interests of me and my party.
	It is important for us to deliver our manifesto. That manifesto is about making sure that we keep a strong economy. We have the lowest interest rates and the lowest unemployment for decades. It is about delivering extra investment in the national health service and schools. It is also about improving the minimum wage, maternity pay and maternity rights. Further, as we shall see over the next few weeks, it is about sorting out the pensions issue and energy policy.
	There is one difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman. I am here delivering the manifesto on which we were elected. The right hon. Gentleman wrote his party's last manifesto, and now he does not stand by a word of it.

Barry Sheerman: r ose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A Member is addressing the House.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we still have a mountain to climb in terms of getting the right skills for the population? We had the news from Australia just a few hours ago that London has won the bid to host the London skills olympics in 2011. This is a real boost, considering we beat Australia, France and Sweden.

Tony Blair: I congratulate all who managed to win the opportunity to host the world skills competition in London. We won the competition, as my hon. Friend has stressed, against fierce competition from other countries, because over the past few years we have put extra resources into skills education. We have allowed about 750,000 people to get qualifications that they did not previously have. It is the emphasis that we have placed on a skilled work force that has allowed us to make this progress.

Menzies Campbell: I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy for those who gave their lives in Basra and their families and friends.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the extent of anxiety and hardship that has been caused in rural areas by the Government's mishandling of the single farm payment scheme?

Tony Blair: Yes. Of course we do. That is why, after the chief executive of the agency resigned, we tried to ensure that the money was paid through to people. It will be extremely important to ensure that the changes that have been made over the past few months are kept going so that people receive the payments due to them.

Menzies Campbell: The Prime Minister knows that this arises not just from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There istrouble at the Home Office and, judging by today's report from the King's Fund, there is trouble in the national health service. Following the right hon. Gentleman's reshuffle, does he accept that the people of the United Kingdom are much more likely to be motivated by appreciation of the Government's performance than by personalities? Does he accept also that his Ministers will be judged by their achievements, not their preference for him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When will the Prime Minister do something about the NHS, about DEFRA and about the Home Office?

Tony Blair: We actually are doing something about the national health service. I agree that difficult changes are being put in place— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask Members on both sides of the House to settle down?

Tony Blair: Difficult changes are being put in place in the health service, but the important thing is that we achieve our target of an 18-week maximum wait not just for in-patients but for out-patients. That is revolutionising the national health service, and it means that people can book an appointment. It builds on the fact that we used to have hundreds of thousands of people waiting more than six months for an in-patient appointment, and we do not any more. People used to wait years for simple operations such as operations for cataracts, but they do not do so now. It builds on the fact that we have about 85,000 extra nurses in the national health service. That is a pretty good list of achievements, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say so.

Chris Mullin: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to Amnesty International's publication today of a report on the havoc caused by the trade in small arms? Does he recall that a recommendation of his Commission for Africa was that negotiations should begin on an arms trade treaty by the end of 2006? Will he put his weight behind such negotiations, because I fear that not much will happen if he does not?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend makes is very important indeed. There will be negotiations so that we can achieve a treaty, hopefully at the United Nations General Assembly this autumn. That was raised not just during our European Union presidency but at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We are in touch, too, with all those people in civic society who have led the campaign, and I very much hope that we will secure a treaty that is sufficiently effective to include all the major arms-exporting states. This is not just about constraining illegitimate sales of defence equipment but about tackling illicit and irresponsible transfers, particularly, as he said, of small arms, which do so much damage and tragically kill so many people in Africa.

Patrick Mercer: May I draw the Prime Minister back to an answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)? Last week, he said unequivocally that
	"everyone who is a foreign national who serves a prison sentence is automatically deported".—[ Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 963.]
	A few days later, the Lord Chancellor said that
	"unless there are special circumstances we need to think about whether or not somebody who commits an imprisonable offence should be deported."
	Can the Prime Minister tell the House who is determining Government policy?

Tony Blair: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why the point that he is making is wrong. [ Interruption. ] He asked me, and I am about to give the answer. The fact is, the people who should be deported are foreign prisoners. In other words, they are foreign and they have been in prison. The point that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made was not that this is about everyone who is convicted of an imprisonable offence, as some of those people may not go to prison, but that everyone who is in prison should be deported. That is why they are called foreign prisoners.

Michael Connarty: When preparing for a speech on workers' memorial day at the memorial in Bathgate, I was shocked to find that in 2004-05, 220 workers died in UK workplaces and that there was a 29 per cent. rise in deaths in Scotland to 36. What will the Prime Minister do to reverse the trend since 1998, as the UK index has risen from 100 to 107? In the same period, the index for workplace injuries has gone down to 82 in the European Union.

Tony Blair: I accept, as my hon. Friend implied, that this is a serious issue, although I would point out that fatalities are at a record low, with major injuries down by two thirds since 1974. As he may know, the Health and Safety Commission published a strategy on workplace health and safety in Great Britain to 2010, and we will make further improvements based on the recommendations in that report. I hope that that will deal with some of the issues that he has raised.

Simon Burns: Will the Prime Minister please help to expedite authorisation of the Broomfield hospital private finance initiative scheme in Chelmsford?

Tony Blair: As I understand it, the PFI review team visited the trust in the hon. Gentleman's constituency last week. I understand that it was a successful meeting. A number of financial and contractual issues need to be resolved, and we expect the work to take approximately six months but hope it will have an optimistic conclusion. The scheme is worth £170 million or more, so it is a very important development. I think I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that it will go ahead as quickly as possible, once the remaining issues have been sorted out.

John Smith: More than 25,000 people die every year in the United Kingdom from deep vein thrombosis. That is more than from breast cancer, AIDS and road traffic accidents put together. As this is national thrombosis week, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Lifeblood, the thrombosis charity, on raising awareness of this deadly and debilitating disease? Can he tell me what measures his Government will introduce to reduce that alarming number of deaths in our hospitals?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. There are about 25,000 deaths a year from thromboembolism. It is a serious issue, as he rightly implies, that requires comprehensive action. Following the report last year of the Select Committee on Health, the Department of Health established an independent expert working group, which will report to the chief medical officer. Recommendations will be made by the summer, so within the next few weeks we will be in a position to say what more we can do to try and tackle the problem.

Nadine Dorries: A 77-year-old farmer in my constituency fired a warning pellet at a stray dog that was worrying his sheep. A dozen armed policemen in six police cars arrived in his drive, arrested him in front of his terrified grandchildren and detained him in a cell for hours without allowing him to speak. When the Prime Minister said he was tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, was that what he meant?

Tony Blair: For fairly obvious reasons, and with respect to the hon. Lady, I do not know anything about the case that she has raised. How the police respond to a particular incident is for them. I have learned enough about such cases to be wary of commenting on them until the full facts are known.

Tom Clarke: Given the African Union discussions last week culminating in the Abuja agreement, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House his understanding of the impact of that agreement on the long-suffering people of Darfur, who are of course entitled to the support of the whole international community?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to all who have been involved in the negotiations, particularly the President of Nigeria and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who played a crucial role, with others, in achieving the agreement. I would make two points to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). First, it is important that the Government of Sudan end their opposition to the UN force taking over from the African Union. Secondly, we must make sure that in the new force that is deployed, we have sufficient firepower to enable us to ensure that any agreement is properly policed. We are considering the matter urgently, with the United States of America, particularly, and with other NATO partners, to see what more we can do.
	The situation in Sudan is very serious indeed. Thousands of people are dying needlessly. It is a classic example of why the Commission for Africa report recommendation about a standing peacekeeping force for Africa is so important. In the end, the problem in such situations is not just humanitarian: unless the opposing sides can be kept apart, which requires military force, it is extremely difficult for humanitarian aid to be effective. We will continue to work hard on the problem.

Alistair Carmichael: This Saturday will be the first anniversary of the massacre in Andizhan of innocent, unarmed civilian protesters by Uzbek security forces. What are the Government doing to ensure that President Karimov and his loathsome regime will be held to account by the international community for that act of butchery?

Tony Blair: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the UK was at the forefront in condemning the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force that resulted in that killing. It was under our presidency that the European Union imposed measures such as a visa ban and an arms embargo. We will look at strengthening those EU measures, and we have been sponsoring a United Nations resolution through the European Union. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep up the pressure on Uzbekistan in order to make sure that the human rights situation is changed.

Rosie Cooper: As West Lancashire has very little burial space and no crematorium, local people are forced to pay neighbouring local authorities a high premium to use their burial plots or crematoriums. Will the Prime Minister join local clergy and residents in calling on Conservative-controlled West Lancashire district council to meet its moral obligation to allow local people to bury their dead nearby?

Tony Blair: I know that that is an important issue in my hon. Friend's constituency. As she knows, local authorities currently have no duty to provide burial grounds, although most do so and planning for burial ground provision is part of authorities' normal strategic duties. We are reviewing the matter, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will make an announcement shortly.

Mark Harper: On 8 February, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and the entire parliamentary Labour party heard me present a petition to the House signed by 6,056 of my constituents to support the Dilke memorial hospital, which was built with contributions from coal miners in the Forest of Dean. Today, we have heard about plans to close the hospital owing to NHS deficits. My constituents receive just £1,128 of health spending per head, while the Prime Minister's enjoy £1,442. Does the Prime Minister think that that is fair?

Tony Blair: It is fair to point out that funding for West Gloucestershire PCT, which includes the Forest of Dean, has increased by 31 per cent., which is £53 million, and will increase by a further 20 per cent., which is another £50 million, over the next two years. Whatever amount of money we put into the health service, PCTs and hospital trusts must live within their budgets. One thing is absolutely sure—if people vote Conservative and get a Conservative Government, they will get less money, not more, in the health service.

Betty Williams: As my right hon. Friend will know, the only way to travel to and from the island of St. Helena is by sea.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Betty Williams: At a recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Malta, delegates from St. Helena expressed their gratitude for UK investment, which will enable them to open an airport by 2010, but there are infrastructure problems involving water, electricity and the health network. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any plans by the international community to help the residents of that remote island—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister can answer.

Tony Blair: When my hon. Friend first mentioned St. Helena, I wondered what was coming in the rest of her question. I am happy to add that important issue to the other issues that I must resolve, but I am not entirely familiar with her point.

John Maples: I offer my support to the Prime Minister on his decision to relieve the Deputy Prime Minister of departmental responsibilities—it is very good for all of us to see nine years of unremitting incompetence finally rewarded. However, I want to go further in my support, because the Prime Minister has been criticised for allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to keep his salary and the vast perks of his office. I am with the Prime Minister, however, because the new arrangement is an improvement: he is right that it is better to pay the Deputy Prime Minister for not running a Department than it is to pay him for running one.

Tony Blair: I remember the hon. Gentleman's Deputy Prime Minister—after his two years in office, the Tories achieved their worst election victory on record. [Hon. Members: "Oh"] The hon. Gentleman remembers Michael Heseltine, who became Deputy Prime Minister and two years later the Tories had the worst election result in their history. This Deputy Prime Minister has presided over three election victories, so I prefer Prezza to Hezza.

Chris Ruane: May I congratulate the previous Tory Government on their £8 million investment in the St. Asaph business park in my constituency in 1990 and on their £2.5 million investment on a flyover for that business park? Before the Prime Minister starts to think that he is dealing with the first Labour defection of this Parliament, may I say that that business park lay empty for seven years under the Tories and that, since 1997, the Labour Government have created 2,700 quality jobs. What measures will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that that economic success continues in my constituency and in the rest of Wales?

Tony Blair: People remember that, in my hon. Friend's constituency and many others, those were the days when interest rates averaged 10 per cent., there were 3 million unemployed— [Interruption.] Oh yes, we do not forget those days. Under this Government, we have 2 million more jobs, the lowest unemployment rate for three decades, interest rates half what they were under the Conservatives and record investment in schools and hospitals. That is why my hon. Friend is right to be proud of his Government.

Points of Order

Greg Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago, I raised a point of order to register my concern that information was given to the press that had been alleged in an answer to a parliamentary question as being unavailable. You kindly advised me, Mr. Speaker, to resubmit that question and I was concerned when, on 3 May, that question was answered with a holding reply, saying that the question would be answered shortly by the Minister with responsibility for planning. Since I am asking for information that has already been given to the press, surely it is a discourtesy bordering on contempt for Parliament that that information is not available immediately. Will you advise me what steps I can take to have that information provided to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, I do not know the full details behind the hon. Gentleman's point of order, so I will look into the matter further and get back to him.

Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received notice of a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, as I understand that a press release has been issued within the past hour announcing the closure of three Army bases in Northern Ireland, one of which is in my constituency? Its closure will put hundreds of civilians out of work within the next few months and many of them will encounter great difficulty in gaining employment outside the military environment. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received notice of an intention to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have not received any such notice— [Interruption.] Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. I understand that no one wants redundancies and job losses in their constituencies, so my advice is that the hon. Gentleman should call for a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the matter.

Regulation of Mortgage Repossessions

George Mudie: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the repossession of residential property may be sought only under certain conditions; and for connected purposes.
	Last year, 10,250 owners had their homes repossessed as a result of mortgage arrears. That figure, which amounts to more than 200 properties a week, was more than 60 per cent. up on the previous year, and that upward trend is forecast to continue. It is lower than in the peak years of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but it is worrying and is only the tip of the iceberg, as the number of owners actually served with a court order can be more than 10 times that number. In most cases, the matter is settled before court and some have the order suspended, but the process of court action or even the threat of court action is traumatic to most of the people involved. The Council of Mortgage Lenders complacently states that the numbers, although rising, are below record levels, but that ignores the devastating effects on the families concerned, particularly the children.
	Before I detail those effects, I must make the point that the Bill is not a measure to protect those who can pay but, for their own reasons, fail to do so. It is designed to protect those who are hit by circumstances outwith their control that make it difficult for them to meet their mortgage payments.
	Anyone can be hit by unemployment, ill health and temporary loss of income, but their situation, given understanding by the lender, can be recovered. It is fair to say that in the majority of cases, particularly with the more responsible lenders, good sense and flexibility mean that the problem is worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. However, it is recognised that many lenders do not show the necessary patience and good will, and court action for repossession is sought prematurely. It is also notable that where a borrower is dealing with a bank on their own, the voluntary mortgage code is not always adhered to. Amazingly, much better sense is shown when bodies such as citizens advice bureaux become involved.
	I should also say a word about insurance, which at first glance can be suggested as an easy solution. A large proportion of the properties involved are right-to-buy properties at the cheaper end of the market. Here, every penny counts with the borrowers, and most find insurance too expensive. Moreover, as is sadly the case with so many insurance products, the exclusions in the policies often make them of little use.
	All Members will have had constituents who have endured the process, and may not need reminding of the damage done to families. Nevertheless, I should like to place on the record some details of a Rowntree Trust report on the social consequences of mortgage repossession for parents and their children. It found that repossession hits six main areas of people's lives: it alters their social status and identity, adversely affects personal and family relationships, affects their health and well-being, damages their quality of life, destroys future aspirations, and causes real problems for their children. Taking only three of those areas, the study lists the ways in which, for example, family relationships were affected. It found marital breakdown, arguments, inability to invest trust in the partner perceived responsible, and parenting difficulties. It noted poor physical health, poor mental health, stress and depression. For children, it found problems with loss of friends, different schools, bad health and, understandably, emotional insecurity.
	In the light of the continuing rise in the number of repossessions, the questionable and somewhat arbitrary behaviour of lenders and the huge personal cost to the borrowers, as well as the social costs to us all, the Bill seeks to strengthen and rationalise the regulation of mortgage repossessions. It would ensure that irresponsible lending had to be taken into account when repossession was sought. No one wants to inhibit the flexibility of banks, but if things go wrong, the lending history should be a factor in deciding whether repossession is warranted.
	As has been found necessary in other areas of financial life, there should be one regulator. Some loans are currently regulated by the Financial Services Authority under its mortgages regime; others are regulated by the Office of Fair Trading under the new consumer credit legislation. In the eyes of professionals in the industry, that is leading to confusion and difficulty. The Bill would establish a single regulatory regime for secured loan products. There would be a requirement that repossession should not be sought when there is a given level of equity in the property. I recently had a case where one of the major high street banks was seeking repossession for debts totalling less than £5,000, yet there was £90,000 equity in the property. Clearly, there was no need for that bank to race to court under those circumstances.
	Under the Bill, the length of time a borrower has been in the property would have to be considered by the court. Ironically, under current consumer credit legislation, a car that is bought by hire purchase cannot be repossessed once the borrower has made a certain number of payments, but that facility does not apply in the case of a home, which is more vital to every family.
	The Bill would force courts to take into consideration the damaging effects on children of a forced repossession. It would also seek to regularise the approach of local councils, which often, regardless of a date being given for eviction, refuse to consider the family for alternative housing until the actual eviction has taken place, thus making hostel accommodation unavoidable.
	As the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux pointed out, some lenders take court action for possession too quickly and with too little regard to good arrears practice or the costs and consequences of such actions for the borrower. The Bill would introduce a pre-court protocol for mortgage repossessions in keeping with the broad strategy of the Department for Constitutional Affairs for reducing unnecessary court action. It would also be modelled on the pre-court protocol for rent arrears possessions that the Department is currently developing.
	The measures are all designed to strengthen the regulations so that innocent, hard-working people who have a temporary setback can be given every opportunity to keep the family home together and, when appropriate and by agreement, make good the default. The best building societies do that in the main, but sadly there are people in the industry who ignore the voluntary mortgage code and needlessly destroy people's lives.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Mudie, Mr. Kevan Jones, Mr. Phil Willis, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Bob Spink, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Helen Jones, Colin Burgon, Mr. Nicholas Brown, Mr. Ian Austin and Alan Keen.

Regulation of mortgage repossessions

Mr. George Mudie accordingly presented a Bill to provide that the repossession of residential property may be sought only under certain conditions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed [Bill 180].

Orders of the Day

Police and Justice Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Delegation of police authority functions

'(1) 'Section 107 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) (application to police authorities of provisions about discharge of local authority functions) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3A) there is inserted—
	"(3B) Section 101 above, in its application to a police authority, shall have effect as if a reference in subsection (1), (2), (4) or (5) to an officer of an authority included a reference to a member of that authority."
	(3) For subsection (4) there is substituted—
	"(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision regulating the power of a police authority under section 101 above to arrange for the discharge of their functions by a committee, sub-committee, officer or member of the authority as respects part only of their area.
	(4A) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular—
	(a) impose limitations or restrictions on the functions which may be the subject of arrangements of the kind referred to in that subsection;
	(b) make provision as to the membership or chairmanship of any committee or sub-committee discharging functions under such arrangements;
	(c) impose limitations or restrictions on which officers or members of a police authority may discharge functions under such arrangements.
	(4B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	(4) Subsection (6) (members of police authority committees must be authority members) is omitted.'. — [Mr. Byrne.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 54
	No. 2, in page 66, line 32 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.
	Government amendments Nos. 55 and 56
	No. 3, in page 66, line 36 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
	No. 4, in page 66, line 37 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.
	Government amendment No. 57
	No. 5, in page 66, line 42 [Schedule 2], leave out 're-appointment' and insert 're-election'.
	No. 6, in page 66, line 43 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
	No. 7, in page 66, line 48 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.
	Government amendments Nos. 58 and 59
	No. 8, in page 68, line 46 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.
	Government amendments Nos. 60 and 61
	No. 9, in page 69, line 2 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
	No. 10, in page 69, line 3 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.
	Government amendment No. 62
	No. 11, in page 69, line 8 [Schedule 2], leave out 're-appointment' and insert 're-election'.
	No. 12, in page 69, line 9 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
	No. 13, in page 69, line 14 [Schedule 2], leave out 'appointment' and insert 'election'.
	Government amendments Nos. 63 and 64
	No. 82, in page 73, line 18 [Schedule 2], at end insert—
	'Referendums on proposals to alter police areas
	20A After section 33 (Objections to alterations proposed by Secretary of State) there is inserted—
	"33A Referendums on proposals to alter police areas
	(1) Before making an order under section 32 the Secretary of State shall by order cause a referendum to be held in every area affected about the proposed alteration in police areas.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1)—
	(a) in relation to a proposed alteration made under section 32(3)(a), after he has received a request under that subsection;
	(b) in relation to a proposed alteration made under section 32(3)(b), after he has given further notice to objectors under section 33(4)(b).
	(3) The question to be asked in a referendum to be held in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) above shall be agreed by—
	(a) the Secretary of State,
	(b) each police authority affected by the proposed alteration, and
	(c) the Electoral Commission.
	and specified in the order.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with—
	(a) each police authority affected by the proposed alteration, and
	(b) the Electoral Commission
	ensure that an order made under subsection (1) above makes such provision as is necessary to secure the proper conduct of a referendum.
	(5) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall not exercise his power to make an order under section 32 unless a majority of votes cast in a referendum held under this section in each of the existing areas affected supports the proposed alteration." '.
	No. 14, in page 74, line 11 [Schedule 2], leave out paragraphs 24 to 26.
	No. 15, in page 74, line 14 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert
	'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, or a request from a police authority responsible for maintaining a police force,'.
	No. 16, in page 74, line 21 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert
	'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, or a request from a police authority responsible for maintaining a police force,'.
	No. 19, in page 75 [Schedule 2], leave out lines 7 to 18.
	No. 17, in page 75, line 36 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert
	'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody'.
	No. 18, in page 75, line 41 [Schedule 2], after 'Where', insert
	'following a recommendation of the Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody'.
	No. 20, in page 76 [Schedule 2], leave out lines 17 to 27.
	Government amendment Nos. 72, 73 and 75.

Liam Byrne: I shall first deal briefly with the Government amendments.
	Government amendment No. 75 is consequential to new clause 4. As hon. Members know, police authorities can delegate powers to construct committees, but only those that are organised across the entire geography of a region. New clause 4 and the associated amendment No. 75 will enable police authorities to delegate their functions either to a member of the authority or to an area committee of the authority. They would therefore provide police authorities with the flexibility to establish area committees and delegate some of their functions to such committees. That is important in the context of combined working with local authorities.
	Government amendment No. 64 and the associated consequential amendments will enable police authorities to appoint more than one individual to the office of deputy chief constable when there is a compelling operational case for that. I have tabled the amendments to enable police authorities to delegate to area committees in response to strong representations by my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). They have made the powerful case that, in the light of the special circumstances in Wales—including its geography and its transport infrastructure—an all-Wales police force could require more than one deputy chief constable and more than one police authority area committee.
	Amendments Nos. 54 and 59 are technical. They reproduce the existing order-making power in schedule 3 to the Police Act 1996 that enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on the procedures to be followed by selection panels charged with identifying candidates for appointment as independent members of police authorities.
	Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 and 60 to 63 correct a drafting error in the Bill to provide for the appointment of a chairman and one or more vice-chairmen from the membership of a police authority, as is set out in the Police Act 1996.
	Amendments Nos. 2 to 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), relate to the election of police authority chairmen and vice-chairmen. I can assure the House that we have no intention of exercising the regulation-making power in schedule 2 to provide for the Home Secretary to appoint chairs or vice-chairs of police authorities. Our aim is simply to give a greater measure of flexibility in the legislation in relation to the appointment of police authorities as a whole. Our proposal is therefore very straightforward: we propose to exercise the regulation-making power so as to provide that the chair and vice-chair of police authorities outside London will, as now, be appointed by the members of the authority. In the case of the Metropolitan police authority, we have consulted on a proposal that the Mayor of London should appoint the chairman. We are considering the responses to the consultation and will announce our conclusions in the summer.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), now the Minister without Portfolio, said in Committee that candidates for chairmanships should have the right skills for the job. That was outlined clearly in the White Paper, "Building Communities, Beating Crime". We intend that candidates for the role of chair should be subject to a competency-based selection process. As in other areas, we will consult on the detailed provisions to be included in the regulations. In the light of my assurances on this issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will agree not to press her amendments.
	I turn now to amendments Nos. 14 to 20. I believe that the House is united in its ambition to ensure that recent improvements in police performance continue, and even accelerate. We all know that, in the real world, the prospect of outside intervention can be a great motivator for change.

Patrick McLoughlin: I realise that the Minister is new to his responsibilities, but can he tell us whether it is the Home Secretary's desire to carry on the intention of his predecessor to merge our police forces? Will there be a review of that decision, particularly in relation to the merging of the police forces in the east midlands? Most people there think that the previous Home Secretary was wholly wrong to say that all five of the east midlands county forces should be merged into just one force.

Liam Byrne: Amalgamations are not the subject of the Bill, but I will address the question of related powers in a moment.
	Intervention powers are long-established, and they allow the Secretary of State to fulfil one of the most important responsibilities that he or she has, namely to address rapidly any failings in policing. The rationale for the Government's revisions to the existing powers is based not on theory but on the reality based on our experience since the inception of the original powers, and on our work in supporting forces to enable them to perform better.

David Howarth: I have heard the Minister's predecessor make that argument. Is not there a change of principle involved here, in that there will be no independent hearing under the new procedure? In fact, the powers are to be given directly to the Home Secretary, with no independent element at all.

Liam Byrne: I will come to the question of amalgamations shortly.
	In Committee, many hon. Members accepted the principle that powers of last resort to intervene should exist, providing the Secretary of State with the means to take remedial action where significant and enduring performance failings had been identified. These revisions are about ensuring that the powers are quickly usable. Sometimes a measure of speed is essential if the public are to secure the protection that they need, and that they pay for. Intervention powers are, and will remain, powers of last resort, and the revisions are not intended to change that.
	The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green—who is not in her place—seek to insert a number of unnecessary obstacles in the legislation. For example, amendment No. 14 seeks to remove all the proposed changes to the intervention powers. This overlooks the key role that intervention powers play in driving up police performance, and the changes needed to make them fit for purpose. Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 seek to reinsert the requirement that intervention will be undertaken only following a recommendation from the chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody or, as the new legislation provides, a recommendation from the police authority responsible for maintaining the police force. Enabling the Secretary of State to draw on the advice of a wider range of sources when considering intervention will mean that a wider base of knowledge on which to base an intervention decision is possible. That might include a recommendation from the inspectorate, for example, but experience has shown that a wider range of sources of information exist, such as a public inquiry—on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) mentioned the Bichard inquiry. There is every expectation that the inspectorate's opinion on whether to intervene would remain a central consideration. It is right, however, that other sources of information are not precluded from informing that decision.
	Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 seek to remove the Secretary of State's ability to intervene without delay when he is satisfied that the chief officer or chair of the police authority has been given sufficient information and time to remedy those failings. When a police force or police authority has failed to address problems of which it has been made aware, and it has already been given time to address them, surely a different solution needs to apply. Where a long-standing and known performance issue has persisted and gone unresolved, we therefore feel that it would be illogical, and possibly irresponsible, simply to hand back the problem to the force or authority without any stronger or more immediate requirement for its resolution. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will not press her amendments on those provisions.
	Amendment No. 82, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), requires that referendums are held before an order can be made under section 32 of the Police Act 1996 altering police force areas. I appreciate that a process of permanent revisionism is now taking hold on the Conservative Benches, but the amendment ignores the adequate provisions already in the Police Act for merging force areas. Indeed, those very provisions were substantially revised by the previous Administration in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary.

Simon Burns: What is the difference in principle between the Government wanting to discover the wishes of local people with regard to regional government—in relation to the referendum in the north-east—and their not wanting to listen to the wishes of local people with regard to the regionalisation of police forces as a result of mergers?

Liam Byrne: As I shall explain in a moment, the provisions for merging force areas set out in the 1996 Act put sufficient protection in place and require deliberation in the House. In our constitution, referendums are typically reserved for issues of significant constitutional development, such as regional government, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and our relationship with the European Union. Under the 1996 Act, a merger may take place either if the police authorities concerned have volunteered or if the Home Secretary considers that a merger would be in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of policing. Therefore, there are three lines of constitutional defence.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister referred to the fact that the previous Administration provided the opportunity for police forces to merge. How many of those police forces have taken up that opportunity? I ask that question because mergers are now being forced on them.

Liam Byrne: No, a number of mergers are currently under consideration, and we are in a period of reviewing objections.

Mark Pritchard: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's question that many police forces have undertaken their own market research surveys? In West Mercia, for example, more than 80 per cent. of local people do not want their constabulary merged with other forces. The reason the Government will not have a referendum on the matter is that they already know that the answer from the overwhelming majority of people around the nation is a resounding no.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but two issues need teasing apart. First, there is the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate that says that the current structure of forces does not provide sufficient resilience or protective services to deal with level 2 crime. As he will know, organised crime is at work in our communities, especially in relation to drugs, and that requires greater resilience. Secondly, one of the purposes of this place is to consider the sort of changes now proposed.

Mark Pritchard: On that point, is not the Minister aware that there is already resilience in West Mercia and the west midlands generally, in the form of special branch, the regional taskforce and the advent of the Serious Organised Crime Agency? Why do we need all this change when such organisations are already in place? If the Government are serious about resilience, counter-terrorism and dealing with the global threat of terror, why does the Prime Minister still refuse to rule out appointing a Cabinet-level Minister to deal with those important issues?

Liam Byrne: It is not for me to second-guess the Prime Minister's motives on anything.  [Laughter.] Let me return to two issues. First, as the hon. Gentleman would accept, if Her Majesty's inspectorate has set out an argument that the current structure of 43 forces is insufficient to provide robust, effective and resilient protective services, it is surely incumbent on the Government to respond.

Stewart Jackson: rose—

Owen Paterson: rose—

Liam Byrne: I will just finish this point.
	Secondly, on the role of the House, I want to answer directly the point about referendums. As the House knows, the process is that the Home Secretary must give notice of his intention to merge forces, and then there is a period of four months for the submission of objections. The Home Secretary must then consider those objections and respond to them before orders are made. Where a merger proposal is initiated by the Home Secretary—this is the most important point for the House—the necessary order is subject to the affirmative procedure, so that there is a debate and vote in both Houses.
	I am not sure that it is the time to allow the new revisionism to run riot in the way proposed. I am a great advocate of direct democracy, probably more so than philosophers such as Michael Oakeshott or Edmund Burke. There is a place for referendums, and in our parliamentary system they should be reserved for major issues of constitutional significance, such as devolution and our future relationship with the European Union. It is for the House to deliberate and decide.

Tobias Ellwood: May I pose the same question to the Minister again? Since 1994, constabularies have been allowed to merge should they wish to do so, but how many such mergers have taken place?

Liam Byrne: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will focus on the object of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Liam Byrne: I will do so in a moment.
	The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden contains a number of interesting features, which also compel me to urge the House to reject it. First, it would require a referendum even when the police authorities concerned have volunteered to merge. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a keen reader of the  Yorkshire Post, and I therefore read with interest the article by Simon McGee on 26 April. I noticed that the North Yorkshire police authority, for example, had voted in favour of a merger. I understand that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who is not in his place, supported that decision, and said that,
	"if individual police forces and individual councillors want to campaign for amalgamations they're absolutely free to."
	He continued:
	"That's actually what devolution should be all about."
	The effect of the amendment, however, would be to deny that.
	Secondly, the amendment requires that the Home Secretary, affected police authorities and the Electoral Commission must agree the wording, which leaves open the question of what would happen if they could not agree. Finally, the amendment requires majority votes in each of the affected areas, which is an odd form of democracy, because if two out of three areas said yes, but a smaller one, perhaps with the minority of the population, said no, it would effectively be able to exercise a veto.

Owen Paterson: The Minister has mentioned the Home Secretary's role a couple of times. As we know, the Home Secretary represents a Scottish seat, and has no remit for policing in Scotland.
	Interestingly, a vigorous debate took place in the Labour party in Scotland. A party insider said:
	"We want police forces to be more accountable to the communities they serve."
	The breaking up of Strathclyde police is being discussed where the Home Secretary has no remit. Then the Home Secretary comes down to England and tells our constituents, who massively oppose larger police forces, that they may be given them.
	What is the Home Secretary's real opinion? On his home patch, his own party is debating the breaking up of a very large police force. Now he has come down here—he has only been in power over the past few days—and I should like to know his real views. Is he going to listen to us? Is he going to listen to our constituents? Is he going to let people have a referendum where there is huge local opposition to this measure?

Liam Byrne: There are two voices in particular to which I would expect the Home Secretary to listen. One is the voice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which has tabled a report; the other is the voice of the House, which will be heard in the debates that are required for any amalgamation initiated by the Home Secretary.
	I think that there are strong arguments against the amendment, and I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.

Nick Herbert: I welcome the new Minister of State to his post, and congratulate him on successfully seeking political asylum from the Department of Health. I also welcome the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). I look forward to debating these issues with both of them.
	Most of the Government amendments are technical, and we are happy to accept them. The Minister, however, raised one issue in relation to the new power to appoint a deputy chief constable, which has been introduced at a very late stage.
	I do not object to the principle that new strategic forces should be allowed to appoint additional deputy chief constables, but it gives rise to a serious question about the whole rationale for mergers—which, after all, was intended to secure savings that could be reinvested in protective services. The essence of the savings that were to be achieved was to result from the reductions in the number of senior command posts.
	Page 18 of a Home Office document supporting the proposal to create a west midlands regional force—the Minister will know about that from his constituency—refers to cost savings that are quantified, and suggests that the principal cost saving would derive from a reduction in the number of senior command staff. Now we are presented with an amendment that would allow such a strategic force to take on additional command staff, thereby eating into one of the main areas of saving that have been identified as a rationale for merger.

Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position, or rather his party's position? Does his party support the idea of deputy chief constables within regions or not?

Nick Herbert: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said quite clearly that I supported the new provision that would allow strategic forces to take on additional deputy chief constables. My point is that the entire rationale for merger was that it would create savings. The savings have been poorly quantified, but one of the main sources of savings was to be the reduction in the number of command staff. It now appears that the Government are belatedly saying that there may not be the reduction in command staff that they at first suggested, and that forces will be allowed to take on an additional deputy chief constable, which will mean a significant cost. If that is the case, it undermines one of the key bases for the achievement of savings, and the basis for amalgamation.

Ian Lucas: Is it not the case that police authorities may appoint, but such appointments will ultimately be subject to the decision of the Home Secretary? Although police authorities have a power, it will not be exercised in every case, so there may indeed be reductions in the number of senior staff.

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There may be reductions in the number of senior staff. It now appears, however, that in many cases there will not be the reductions that were originally suggested. That undermines the costings that were the basis on which the proposal was presented to local people and to the House.

Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Staffordshire police authority came to speak to Staffordshire Members of Parliament, both Labour and Conservative? Considerable doubt was expressed by Labour Members over the accuracy of their projections of the cost savings. The real fear is that police forces in Staffordshire will be diverted to the west midlands, where there tend to be more trouble spots. We have our needs, too.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend articulates precisely the fear expressed by police forces throughout the country that rural areas in particular will lose out as a consequence of amalgamation, and that resources will be diverted from the front line.

Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that there will also be an impact on rural market towns in Shropshire? Is he as shocked as I am that the cost of merging West Mercia police force into a new super-force for the west midlands is estimated at £57 million, an additional police precept whose cost will be borne by taxpayers throughout Shropshire?

Nick Herbert: I do find it shocking that mergers will cost so much. For several years, any savings that may be achieved—we now know that they are likely to be less than was initially suggested—will be outweighed by the costs. The Association of Police Authorities estimates that the cost of mergers will be about £500 million across England and Wales. The Government belatedly announced in a budgetary letter to the chief constables at the end of March that they would meet the costs of amalgamation, but it is clear that those funds are being raided from the existing police capital budget. Resources that should have been spent on improvements in policing will now be used to pay for management consultants, merged IT systems and new headquarters.
	I should be grateful if the Minister asked for replies to be given to the questions that I tabled for written answer as long ago as January, asking about the costs of the employment of management consultants by the Home Office, police authorities and police forces themselves, as part of the police restructuring exercise. I have not yet received replies to those questions, and I am not surprised that I have not, but I think that months later replies are due.
	With the Home Office budget effectively frozen by the Chancellor from 2008 onwards, the outlook for investment in level 2 services—a premise for amalgamation that is addressed by our amendment No. 82—and for other areas of policing is bleak.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend not find it rather bizarre that the Home Secretary is forcing on Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex an amalgamation that no one in Essex wants, and that the cost will be £29 million?

Nick Herbert: Again, I think it unacceptable that that amount will be taken from the police capital budget and used for an amalgamation that the local force does not want, the police authority does not want and people in Essex do not want.
	In 2004, a leaked joint Home Office strategy unit report warned:
	"Evidence from other sectors suggests that merger can be a costly, protracted exercise which does not always deliver expected benefits and inevitably causes distraction for management and staff".
	In a letter published this week in  The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and  The Times, a group of cross-party chairmen of police authorities representing Cheshire, Cleveland, Northamptonshire, North Wales and West Mercia police authorities added to that warning, pointing out:
	"The current proposals are being rushed through amid concern that they will lead to a damaging reduction in performance, a collapse in neighbourhood policing and a significant loss of accountability. Serious questions remain about the costs and financing of mergers, the impact on council tax, the timescales for transition and the governance arrangements."

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that the Government could have met their financial objectives, which were set from the O'Connor report onwards, had they not so obviously set their face against federated arrangements such as those offered by Cambridgeshire and Suffolk police authorities, and that they could have made financial cuts without affecting front-line operational services?

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, the irony is that the federal option was proposed by the Prime Minister and the strategy unit, but the previous Home Secretary rejected it out of hand. In my own area, forces such as Sussex, Surrey and Kent have lost the option of going down the federal route. I am of course pleased that Kent is being allowed to remain as a stand-alone force, but I regret the fact that the impetus for such federal arrangements has been lost. Such arrangements could have met many of the cost-saving and reinvestment criteria for level 2 policing that amalgamation purportedly addresses, and without impacting on local accountability.
	Serious issues have arisen from the speed with which these proposals have been developed; indeed, they have been a significant distraction from what the Home Office should have been doing in the past few months. Setting aside the obvious issue of whether sufficient ministerial and official attention was paid to the deportation of foreign offenders, the Home Office, as one chief constable remarked, has been moving the deckchairs around in driving through this disruptive and costly amalgamation, when it could have been focusing on other, more important aspects of police reform—not least driving up police productivity and work force reform.
	The Prime Minister said in January that it
	"is not a question of forcing"
	—amalgamations—
	"through".—[ Official Report, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426.]
	But only one amalgamation—Cumbria and Lancashire—has been agreed by both the police authorities concerned. All the others have been contested by at least one of the authorities involved. Now, as the Minister said, there is to be a consultation period, and the question is: what does that consultation really mean? In a letter to The Times of 12 April, 35 council leaders from across the parties and across the country condemned the Home Secretary's merger proposals, arguing the following:
	"As policing is by consent it is crucial that the wishes of the people are heard and respected. Yet the Home Secretary is not listening. He continues to press ahead with his ill-thought out and ill-judged plans, riding roughshod over the vast majority of the people and their elected representatives."
	The truth is that the public have been shut out of discussion about the future of their own police forces. They must be consulted properly.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He knows that one of Peel's nine principles was that the police's ability to perform their duties is dependent on public approval of police actions. Some 96 per cent. of respondents to a telephone poll in West Mercia, which the police conducted in a thoroughly professional manner, wanted West Mercia to be a strategic force. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk that, if we do not consult the public through a referendum, these huge new forces will not have legitimacy in the eyes of the public?

Nick Herbert: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. If they were wise, the Government, the new Home Secretary and his team would pause to reflect on whether this is the right thing to do in seeking to rebuild public confidence and to establish the right set of priorities for the Home Office, in order that it can do its job of contributing more effectively to public safety.

John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend invite Ministers and Members to hold their own plebiscites? I am carrying out a survey in my Lincolnshire constituency, in the form of a plebiscite, to find out just how many people support these dastardly plans. If all Members did that, we could send the results to Ministers, who would then know once and for all that these plans are unpopular, unwarranted and unnecessary.

Nick Herbert: I like my hon. Friend's idea, and should the Government reject amendment No. 82, which calls for referendums, the option remains for police authorities to hold their own referendums, as authorities such as Essex have proposed. I hope that they do so.
	The Government have advanced a number of arguments against amendment No. 82 and the use of referendums, none of which I find convincing. The first objection was articulated in Committee by the former Minister with responsibility for policing. She said that
	"if we simply ask people whether they want their police area to be merged, it is virtually guaranteed that an awful lot of them will say no."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 March 2006; c. 84.]
	That was her principal reason for opposing an amendment calling for a referendum. So the Government do not want to hold referendums because they know that they would lose them. Every single local opinion poll has shown that the public want to keep their local force.
	The second objection advanced in Committee was that referendums were not held in the 1960s and the 1970s, when police forces were previously amalgamated. But in the debate on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill in July 1994, to which the Minister referred—that legislation now provides the statutory basis for driving forward amalgamations—the current Prime Minister, who was then shadow Home Secretary, pointed out the following:
	"When the previous settlements were formed in the Police Act 1964, it was preceded by a royal commission. It was discussed, debated and properly consulted on. Where amalgamations occurred, they occurred as a result of public agreement."—[ Official Report, 5 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 273.]
	There is no public agreement to these amalgamations, which is why the public need to have their say.

Mark Tami: Given that the hon. Gentleman is very keen on referendums, can he tell us how many the Tories have held at national or local level over the years?  [Interruption.]

Nick Herbert: I am very sorry but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question; there was some noise from behind me.

Mark Tami: That is probably because the hon. Gentleman's colleague next to him was shouting. Given that the Tories are now very keen on referendums, can he tell us how many they held at national or local level over the years when they were in power?

Nick Herbert: No, I cannot.
	The third argument advanced by the Government against local referendums—indeed, the Minister has just advanced it—was that one area might be able to block the proposal. For example, even if West Mercia was the only area that objected to the proposal—there is no polling evidence to suggest that that would be so—that could prevent a west midlands super-force from coming into being. But Labour's own policy document, published in 1996, before Labour came to power, answered that very contention. It said:
	"Our advocacy of referendums to measure popular support for elected assemblies is not intended to be a blocking device to prevent progress, but rather is a means of ensuring that these assemblies have their own legitimacy amongst local people."
	Legitimacy is indeed the issue. If an area is to have amalgamation imposed on it—if it can be voted down by a majority vote of other areas—that is not a proper vote on policing for that area; rather, it amounts to a hostile takeover. That is why the Government's argument is wrong.
	The Minister also said that referendums should be reserved for issues of major constitutional significance and change. Yes, they should—that is probably self-evident—but Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary on whose report the Government rely in order to push forward these amalgamations, stated in the introduction to his report that
	"the constitutional implications of this work are significant".
	What is more, in 1994 the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), described the proposed amalgamation of police forces without public debate as a "denial of constitutional principle". If the Minister is relying on the argument that this is not a constitutional matter, he is on shaky ground.

Humfrey Malins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is arguing the case powerfully. He will know that there is a move to force Surrey police to amalgamate with Sussex, and that every Member of Parliament for Surrey is against this, on the basis that it will mean less local accountability and less-efficient policing; indeed, virtually everybody in the county is against the idea. Can he think of any reason why the Government will not be prepared to listen to the people of Surrey, through one means or another, and to take their views into account?

Nick Herbert: As a west Sussex Member, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is our force that will be merged with Surrey and the proposal is deeply unpopular in the county. It is sad that the advice of the police authority—in particular that of the former chief constable of Sussex, who is now the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers—that a federal option should be investigated, was simply not taken. The Government failed even to consider that option properly, even though it was the Prime Minister's preferred route.
	The fifth reason advanced by the Government for rejecting referendums on police mergers is that they know what is best for the people. It is that contempt for public opinion that has led the Government to ignore the people's vote on regional assemblies and proceed by stealth to build regional government in any case. Back in 1996, before the Government came to power, there was a rather different message. The Labour party document on regional government, to which I have already referred, claimed:
	"It is in no-one's interest that we impose unwanted new structures of government on areas of the country that have no great wish to change. We are determined to work in partnership with the people—with their active support and understanding."
	That must be the kind of active support and understanding that the public gave the Labour party in the recent local elections. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked the previous Home Secretary if he would accept the verdict of the people of Essex if they voted emphatically for a stand-alone force, he replied:
	"I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer...no."—[ Official Report, 20 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 5.]
	So that is what new Labour meant by
	"the active support and understanding of the people."
	It meant, "We don't want you to have a say and if, for some reason, you get a say, we'll ignore you."
	I hoped that the new Minister might take a more enlightened view of local or direct democracy, which I know he supports. After all, he co-authored a pamphlet entitled "Power to the People", so let us give the people some real power. Last September, he also co-authored a Fabian Society paper entitled "Why Labour Won". That is now of course of only historical interest to readers. He might be planning a small but significant revision to the title.
	In the pamphlet, the Minister argued for a manifesto to transform the choice and voice of the public in the services for which they pay. I agree with him, but he has fallen at the first fence in his new job by denying local people an important choice over the future of their police forces. Before the local elections and in his previous incarnation under the Deputy Prime Minister—as it were—the new Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made great play of what he called double devolution, in which citizens would have more choice. So where is the citizens' voice in the future shape of their local police force? That is not double devolution: it is doublespeak. Their rhetoric is about localism, community empowerment and the citizen's voice: the reality is a steady accrual of power to Whitehall.
	Successive clauses in the Bill give more power to the Home Secretary and take it from police forces and authorities. This group of amendments also addresses schedule 2 to the Bill, which gives the Home Secretary sweeping new powers to intervene in police forces. ACPO has warned that by enabling the Home Secretary to act independently, the Bill
	"creates a new linear relationship from chief constable at the bottom, to police authority and up to the Secretary of State at the top, replacing the tripartite arrangement that has been in place for many years".

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman talks about localism and local debate. I have great concerns about the proposed all-Wales police force, and local people in great volumes are saying that they want some form of localism. Schedule 2 will give local people the say that they need, so we are moving towards that. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to listen to what people are actually saying, and that is certainly what north Wales MPs have been doing. We are feeding it into the debate today and it is being taken on board.

Nick Herbert: I understand, from all the public opinion polls and surveys that have been conducted in Wales and debates in which I have taken part that there is considerable opposition in Wales to an all-Wales police force. There will be a substantial loss of accountability, because police force headquarters will be a long way from the people of north Wales. That is why there has been such resistance to the proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to listen to the people, and they are telling us that they do not want these amalgamations.
	Ministers claim that the powers in schedule 2 will be used as a last resort. That is what the Minister just told us and the explanatory notes to the Bill set it out in terms. But in Committee the Government refused to put the words on the face of the Bill. When they could offer no convincing reason for not including that uncomplicated safeguard, we became convinced that Ministers have every intention of using the powers more broadly. For that reason, we support amendments Nos. 15 to 18 tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), which will go some way to restoring the balance by requiring that intervention is preceded by a recommendation from the new combined inspectorate, or a request from the police authority. Those are not unnecessary obstacles, as the Minister described them. They are the existing safeguards in legislation against the abuse of power by the Home Secretary and this Bill would remove them.
	The Association of Police Authorities has expressed alarm that the Bill
	"amounts to a fundamental shift of power to the Home Secretary, which undermines the checks and safeguards on which policing is built."
	It warns that that the
	"changes will not only further centralise power...but could also exacerbate the disconnection from local communities that restructuring policing into larger units could involve".
	The association's concern might well have increased if it had heard, as I have, a rumour of a new proposal to create a national policing board in the Home Office, to be chaired by the Home Secretary. There is nothing in the Bill about such a board; nor, to my knowledge, has it been suggested in Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will now confirm whether such a board is planned. If so, it should have been discussed when this Bill was before the House. It is especially relevant to the powers in schedule 2 and the amendments before us, because the concept epitomises the direction of Government policy and the increasingly central direction of policing. We will have half the number of forces, remote from their local communities, with chief constables effectively being appointed by and answering to the Home Secretary. The public simply have not been consulted about a fundamental transfer of power from their communities. That is what our amendment, requiring local referendums on the changes, seeks to address. It is right in principle and it is right because we believe in trusting people. I beg to move amendment No. 82.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move that amendment at the moment. It is up for debate now, but it will be moved when we reach it on the amendment paper.

Martin Horwood: I must first apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who is attending to vital constituency business but who will join the debate as soon as she can.
	I congratulate the Minister on his new responsibilities. It is very impressive to hear new Labour Ministers quoting Edmund Burke; indeed, it must be a first. I suggest that he leaven it with a little John Stuart Mill from "On Liberty", which might be useful in this debate.
	If I were optimistic, I would detect a slight softening of the Government's position in new clause 4. The suggestion that huge super-forces may not be such a clever idea after all is a welcome development, as is the proposal to delegate some authority to deputy chief constables or area committees. If it is the beginning of backtracking on the super-forces, I am pleased to see it.
	I notice that the Minister credits Welsh MPs with some of the arguments that have persuaded him on the new clause, but there are plenty of other examples from my area in the south-west.

Lembit �pik: I have been watching the debate from the comfort of my office[Hon. Members: You should have been here.] Well, I was moved to come and compliment Welsh Labour Members who, like me, are uncomfortable with the suggestion of one super-force across Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the Government need to listen to the cross-party consensus that opposes one police force for the whole of Wales? This is not about scoring points off the Government; it is about getting the right settlement for Wales. Behind the Minister are four good men and true who speak for Labour and for Wales. All of them support keeping the police force in that nation roughly as it is.

Martin Horwood: I certainly agree with that. My hon. Friend must be pleased that he and his Welsh colleagues seem to have had a real impact on Government policy in this area, and that they seem to be moving the Government in a positive direction.
	However, I was about to say that Wales is not the only area to which that principle could apply. In the south-west, my area, the most northerly point of the proposed super-force is to the north of Gloucestershire, around Tewkesbury, while the most southerly is the Scilly Isles. The distance between those areas is about twice the distance between the north and south of Wales. In a sense, therefore, the argument for the south-west is even stronger, and there are signs that the Home Office may be thinking twice about the implications of establishing such an enormous force.
	The metropolitan model of a successful force is the basis of the O'Connor report and the Home Office's response, but it is one thing to apply that model to a large metropolitan area such as Manchester, where there are many police officers, and resources can be reorganised and shifted around, and quite another to say that resources available in the Scilly Isles could resolve a problem in Gloucestershire.
	Interestingly, Gloucestershire's chief constable has continued to make a strong case against the merger of forces in the south-west. In January he wrote to the Minister's predecessor and said that restructuring could cost at least 550 million. He offered shared services and collaboration as an alternative model, saying that it could
	offer a viable alternative to restructuring, and especially so in a disparate geographical region such as the South West. It can build on current strengths, avoid adverse costs associated with restructuring, and avoid disruption at the neighbourhood level.
	If the Government are beginning to pause for thought on these huge, inappropriate and expensive mergers, that is a welcome development.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned metropolitan forces, but we need look no further than London's Metropolitan Police Service to see how difficult it is to police a metropolitan area with very different component parts. Outer London is very different from inner London: the policing needs are different, and there are constant pressures on budgets and the allocation of resources. Does he agree that the same will happen in the very large regional forces that the Government propose? They would face exactly the same problems, as they would cover both rural and more built-up areas, with their different policing needs. There cannot be a borough commander in the whole of Greater London who would not welcome more autonomy in dealing with his resources and budgets.

Martin Horwood: I do not know the details of the Metropolitan force, but the hon. Lady and other hon. Members make a powerful case against a one-size-fits-all solution. What is needed is local flexibility appropriate to an area's geography and the nature of its communities.
	At first sight, Government new clause 4 seems to be positive but, as ever, the Government cannot resist increasing the powers of the Secretary of State at the same time. As a result, the new clause contains powers to impose limits on what may be delegated, and to direct police authorities and forces how and what to delegate to area committees or regional deputy chief constables. The Bill's theme is one of interference and creeping centralised control, and it reappears just when it seems that the Government might be beginning to move in the other direction.
	As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) pointed out, the Bill and its creeping centralisation have constitutional significance.

Stewart Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there appears to be a dichotomy between his party's correct opposition to the proposals for police amalgamations and its consistent support for regional government in every form possible?

Martin Horwood: No, I do not. It is plausible to have a regional government appropriate to the community that it serves that is not based on the model that is emerging in this country. For the record, my party has always been in favour of elected regional government that takes power down from central Government. What we have is unelected regional government that takes power up from local communitiesprecisely the reverse of what we have campaigned for. There are good reasons, to do with civil liberties, and resistance to the undue centralisation of power, for not having a national police force, and for preserving a degree of independence for police forces and authorities.
	Amendment No. 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, would provide for a police authority's chair and vice-chair to be elected rather than appointed by the Secretary of State. Again, we are seeking to remove from the Bill a measure that increases centralisation and the Secretary of State's power.
	When he was considering the amendment, the Minister said that greater flexibility would be allowed and that police authorities and forces, and the Government, would not be constrained. In this Bill, however, the Government always seem to be seeking more flexibility for themselves and less for local people and communities. He said that the Mayor of London would be able to appoint the chairs of police authorities. If that is good enough for the Mayor, why is it not good enough for police authorities all over the country? Why does the Bill have to reserve that power for the Government?
	Given that the support for amendment No. 2 may not be as widespread as we had hoped, we may not press it to a vote. However, I want to place on record our clear support for the principle that police authority chairs and vice-chairs should be elected and not appointed. Interestingly, the first Home Secretary to try to interfere in that process was the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), so it is welcome that the Conservative party is beginning to move away from that centralising instinct. It is just sad that the Labour party seems to have moved past it in the opposite direction.
	Amendment No. 82, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), is based on good instincts. The Conservative party's commitment to referendums has been questioned. That is rather uncharitable, although I remind the House of the trenchant opposition of the then Conservative Government to a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, but I am pleased that Conservative Members seem to have discovered the virtues of direct democracy.
	The Minister said in connection with amendment No. 82 that there was good provision for the reorganisation of police forces. Certainly, existing legislation contains good provision for reorganisation, but there is no provision for the application of a brake on the sort of hasty and precipitate reorganisation proposed in the Bill. I am sympathetic to this amendment, which would apply just such a brake and make it possible for public opinion to exert an influence on what would be a hasty and unwise process.
	However, the Minister identified a fundamental and practical problem with amendment No. 82, which I shall illustrate using an example involving the forces around Gloucestershire, Avon and Wiltshire. If referendums were held in each of those areas, and if Avon and Wiltshire voted in favour of a merger and Gloucestershire voted against, it is difficult to see how such a result could be resolved. The amendment would appear to give a veto to Gloucestershire over the other two areas. It is one thing to hold a referendum in a single area, such as happened with the devolution of power to Wales or Scotland, but it is much more difficult to hold one that involves the interlocking relationships between different areas.
	I now turn to amendments Nos. 14 to 20, again in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. Amendment No. 14 is another attempt to remove the extraordinary powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State. Not only will he be able to interfere when he feels that a police authority is failing but, as is made clear in schedule 2, paragraph 24, in proposed new section 40(2), he will also be able to interfere where he is
	satisfied that the whole or any part of a police force will fail to discharge its functions in an effective manner.
	Added to all the Secretary of State's many powers, therefore, is the psychic ability to predict when a police authority or force is going to fail. That is an extraordinary provision to include in the Bill.
	I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs suggested that the amendment would command wide support. However, if it fails we have amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18, which offer alternative safeguards and checks and an independent voice against the power of the Secretary of State to intervene. The Minister says that checks will be allowed under the legislation, but we have to take his word on trust and hope that we will have an enlightened enough Home Secretary in office to allow those independent voices to be heard. If the Government are so happy for there to be independent checks and balances in the process, why will they not accept them on the face of the Bill? The Minister constantly wants flexibility for himself and his ministerial colleagues, but none for the people and local communities in respect of their policing. It seems perfectly reasonable to include measures in the Bill to put in writing safeguards against abuse of power, from which we must all be protected.
	If the opportunity arises, we shall seek the opinion of the House on amendment No. 14. I commend it and our other amendments to the House.

Ian Lucas: I support the Government amendments, in particular new clause 4 and amendment No. 64.
	The proposals to set up an all-Wales police force have been extremely controversial in Wales, especially in north Wales. North Wales Labour MPs have been listening closely to their constituents' views about the proposals and were regularly in close and active discussions with the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), who is now the Minister without Portfolio, and the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). We look forward to continuing those discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister. I have already benefited from several talks with him.
	Much of the reason for the strength of the controversy in north Wales is that we are extremely proud of our local police force. We have one of the lowest crime rates in the UK and one of the highest detection rates. A person who commits a crime in north Wales is more likely to be caught. North Wales police force is such a good force because of legislation introduced by the Labour Government. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the most successful, far-sighted and effective legislation on policing since the second world war. It has made policing local.
	If Opposition Members had an active and close relationship with their local police forces they would know that with the advent of community safety partnerships, co-operation between local authorities and police forces has developed hugely since 1997 under the Labour Government.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friends and I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important that police forces have an affinity and a closeness to local communities, so why are the Government trying to destroy that by merging police authorities into larger areas where they are divorced from the people?

Ian Lucas: It is essential that individuals and our constituents have links with the police at the most local level. Community safety partnerships enable that to happen. Basic command units in my area of north-east Wales have been extremely effective in linking local authorities and the police so that they can work together. I will give the hon. Gentleman a concrete example. In 2001, when I was first elected, if an individual came to me with a complaint about a police-related matter, I had no idea where in the police force I should refer the complaint. Now, every local authority ward in north Wales has an identified police officer whom I can contact on their mobile phone to deal with individual complaints. I can thus link individuals with concerns about crime in their community to their local police officer, which means that the police force can be much more effective.
	None of that existed under Conservative Governments. The crucial link between the community and the police has been fostered and developed under a Labour Government and I am extremely proud of that. That is why I am campaigning to continue local policing, and the progress that has been made under this Government.

Mark Pritchard: Part of the Government's explanation of the reason for police mergers is that they will increase resilience and improve counter-terrorism and co-ordination between police force areas, so why are five special branch officers being removed from the important port of Holyhead, which has the fourth highest footfall in the country?

Ian Lucas: I have no detailed knowledge of that proposal, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) is in active discussion about it, so I have every confidence that the matter will be satisfactorily resolved owing to his intervention.

Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lucas: I should like to make a little progress.

Albert Owen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Lucas: I will give way to my hon. Friend
	Hon. Members: Oh!

Albert Owen: The port of Holyhead is in my constituency. There was concern about the transfer of policing from the port to the local area but no decision has yet been made. I raised the issue with the Home Secretary, who said that he would look into it. The important issue of resources will follow.

Ian Lucas: I think that I had better give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) now.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned basic command units and I agree with much of what he says, but when I have a problem with a constituent in Lichfield I can take them to police headquarters in Stafford, where they can talk to the top man. The hon. Gentleman knows that the drive from, say, Machynlleth to Cardiff can take as long as driving from London to Cardiff, and the drive from Wrexham to Cardiff takes even longer. Is not that why people in the north of Wales want to keep their own police force rather than being merged into a greater Welsh police force?

Ian Lucas: The previous Home Secretary was well aware that Members of Parliament representing north Wales had profound concerns about the proposals. The new Home Secretary will also be aware of that concern, which we have shown by our attendance in the Chamber today. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and I have been making them, too.
	I was talking about the development of community policing in north Wales, which is a major achievement of the Government. Not all of that progress has been easy; there was resistance to community policing teams being established in north Wales, but we now have community beat officers who are in charge of policing in individual wards. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduced police community support officersan excellent innovation. I was privileged to serve on the Standing Committee on it, and am well aware of the opposition to PCSOs expressed at the time by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, which has now been withdrawn due to the success of scheme.

Mark Tami: Is my hon. Friend surprised that despite everything that the three Tory MPs in Wales have said about policing, none of them is bothering to take part in the debate?

Chris Ruane: What about Plaid Cymru?

Mark Tami: Indeed. Plaid Cymru Members are not bothering to take part either.

Ian Lucas: That is a matter for concern. A lot of heat has been generated, but Labour MPs in Wales have done an awful lot of work on this issue, and that will continue.

Stewart Jackson: On the precise issue of basic command units, are there not smoke and mirrors, and sleight of hand by the Government? What we are actually seeing is, yes, an increase in police community support officers, but the basic command unit in the northern division of Cambridgeshire constabulary has experienced a reduction of 58 full-time police officers over the past three years. That is not making an impact in terms of combating crime.

Ian Lucas: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman makes the point about police numbers, because I was going to say later that police numbers in north Wales have increased from 512 in 1996, under the last Conservative Government, to 836 under this Labour Government, in addition to the community support officers and neighbourhood wardens who have been introduced to the community policing team by the Government.
	Not only is there resistance to community support officers from political opponents, but the chief constable of north Wales was resistant to them, and initially did not apply for the Home Office funding available to enable those community support officers to be introduced. I am pleased to say that the chief constable has now accepted that he was wrong, and we are seeing the widespread introduction of community support officers across north Wales. The development of community policing in north Wales has been very successful indeed. It has led to higher detection rates and less crime. For that reason, I have been working extremely hard to ensure the survival, maintenance and improvement of neighbourhood and community policing in north Wales.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I agree with the points that he is makingthey are reasonableand community policing has been helped by that initiative, and credit to the Government for it. Nevertheless, the great concern, which I am sure we share, about creating a single all-Wales police force is that it will cost us more than many of the benefits that he highlights. Does he share my hope that the new Home Secretary will revisit the issue of an all-Wales police force? Although I recognise that some improvements were made under the previous Home Secretary, the cost of a single all-Wales police force will more than outweigh all the good that he did.

Ian Lucas: There were enormous improvements to policing in north Wales under the previous Home Secretary. I am putting my case to my hon. Friend the Minister in my own way, but I will be very forthright in ensuring that neighbourhood policing continues to improve. I am therefore very disappointed indeed that the Liberal Democrat-led local authority proposes to abolish the neighbourhood warden scheme in Wrexham, thus undermining the progress that has been made to date. I would be delighted to know whether the hon. Gentleman supports that proposal. Perhaps he will intervene and let me know.

Lembit �pik: I am conscious that we may be drifting a bit from the new clause, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman asks me a question and I will give him an answer. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats in his constituency have every intention of doing what is best for local policing. If he is suggesting a dialogue about these issues, it would be safe for me to say that the Liberal Democrats in his constituency would be happy to discuss the best way to police. However, they would agree that the big concern that all hon. Members have on a cross-party basis is that the single biggest threat is creating an all-Wales police force, because resources could be leached from his constituency and mine to high-crime areas. That is one of the reasons why we would have a bigger cost than benefit from that initiative.

Ian Lucas: I now turn specifically to the Government amendments that relate to the creation of an additional deputy chief constable and to allowing the delegation of police authority functions to a lower level. Those amendments represent progress. Clearly, the Home Office has listened to the strong representations from Members of Parliament in Wales and has acted as a result of those representations, for which I am grateful. Of course, I will therefore support those amendments.

Martyn Jones: Although the amendments go some way towards helping with the situation that we foresee in north Wales under an all-Wales police force, does my hon. Friend agree that significant problems remain, and that the Government could do a lot more work to make a north Wales police force more viable? One of the other things on which he might want to press the Government is ensuring that the powers given under the amendments are enforced and used ifas, unfortunately, seems likelywe have an all-Wales police force.

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend presages many of the remarks that I intend to make. The amendments represent progress, but they are not the result that I, as a north Wales Member of Parliament, seek. I accept that there is a recognition that governance issues are extremely important in Wales, because of the peculiar geographical circumstances in Wales and the practical difficulties of improving level 2 policing in Wales, given the country's identity and geography. However, the financing of policing in Wales is crucial.
	Since 1997 there has been investment in creating the community policing teams that have been so effective in improving both the performance and my constituents' perception of the North Wales police force. The concern is that if a reorganisation takes place, the progress that has been achieved will be undermined by the transfer of the funding that North Wales police currently receive away from north Wales to other areas of Wales, which currently have lower performance, lower detection rates and higher crime. An all-Wales police authority, most of whose members are likely to come from south Wales, will be tempted to shift resources away from north Wales to south Wales.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend echoes the sentiments of the North Wales police authority and the fear that resources will go to other parts of Wales. He says that the amendments are important in the sense that they move towards what the North Wales police authority has been requesting. Does he therefore think it appropriate for the Government to pause and take that on board, so that we can find out how these important changes will impact on policing in Wales? Does he therefore agree that the Home Secretary should take some time out and extend the period, so that those authorities can meet to discuss the amendments?

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend the Minister has been in his current position for four days, as has his boss, the new Home Secretary. I am sure that there will be a period of reflection in the Home Office. I am sure that the difficult practical issues that I am raising will be looked at closely by the Home Office and that, to satisfy me, they must make proposals to ensure that the current financing for North Wales police is maintained.

Mark Tami: Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that important work was done with council tax payers to explain that extra money was being invested, with a higher precept, but that they were getting more front-line policing with those resources? It is important that we demonstrate to them that we are ensuring that that extra money is being protected and spent on policing in north Wales.

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Investment pays off in policing. Community police teams, of which we are very proud, have been created in north Wales. We are leading the way on that issue. We do not want the progress that has been made in north Wales to be undermined by any proposal being taken forward. I welcome the amendments and the continuing dialogue with the Home Office on this issue, and I look forward to receiving responses in due course from the new Minister to the concerns that I have expressed today.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the composition of the local teams that he has referred to should reflect the most local level? Whether resources are devoted to fully trained police constables, police community support officers or wardens, the decision should be made to reflect local need, and should not be made centrally.

Ian Lucas: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. One of the interesting innovations and developments that has taken place in north Wales is that there has been a large-scale devolution of budgets from the North Wales police to the basic command units. The crime and disorder partnershipsas they are called in Walesin each area have been developed. They can see which particular areas have policing issues that need addressing and can allocate resources accordingly. It is important that that localism should continue.
	I hope that the Home Office and the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, whom I wish very well in his new post, will listen to the concerns. I thank the Home Office for moving thus far, and I hope that it will be able to resolve the concerns that I have expressed.

John Maples: We have just had a 25-minute debate on community policing in north Wales in the middle of a debate on the reorganisation of police forces across the country. I would like to drag the debate back to that broader' subject. I want to speak in support of amendment No. 82. I am not, in general, in favour of referendums. I take the points that the Minister made and I think that, on the whole, Governments should make those decisions and then be responsible to the House and to the electorate for them. However, in this case there has been so little consultation and consideration of the alternatives that a referendum may be one of the only ways in which we can air matters.
	The former Home Secretary had made up his mind what he wanted to do. The regional agenda was at work and he was not prepared to entertain the concept of the federalisation of forces or of having multi-level, two-tier police forces. I was told that very early on by one of the Ministers concernedI was told not to bother to write about that. Within days of the so-called consultation period finishing, the Home Office had reduced our options in the west midlands to twoand it made it very clear that it did not like one of them. There has not been a proper consultation.
	On the question of referendums and the Conservatives, when police forces were last reorganisedthis is a once in a generation thing and it is important that we get it right, because Governments of different political colours will have to live with the arrangementthere was a royal commission and all the different options were studied. I do not know whether we came to the right conclusion, but nobody could pretend that there was not a full consultation and examination of the alternatives, which there has not been in this case.  [ Interruption. ] I was in favour of a referendum on the European constitutionthat is perfectly true. So, in the end, was the Prime Minister.
	I realise that there is a trade-off, which the Home Office is trying to deal with, between the need for high-tech intelligence-led modern policing to deal with the professional criminal gangs, serious crime such as armed robbery, and terrorism, and the need for local community policing, which is what most of our constituents want and feel that they do not get. I can see the argument that, at a big regional level, a west midlands police force with 15,000 police constables will be able to have dedicated units to deal with drugs, organised crime, armed robbery and terrorism, whereas that cannot be done on an amalgamation basis or by having one police force taking the lead. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a police force such as Warwickshire, with 1,000 policemen, will provide a far greater level of local accountability and community policing than would be the case if it were part of the west midlands force. I am concerned about that.
	The good thing about the old arrangement was local accountability and community policing in rural areas. The bad thing was the lack of resilience. If a couple of murders occurred in Warwickshire, until they were sorted out, that was the end of about half of the community policing. Under the new arrangements, those good and bad aspects are reversed. The arrangements will be good for serious crime and resilience, but bad for local policing and accountability. We need to consider another way of dealing with the matter.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to address my specific concerns when he sums up. First, the high levels of crime in the conurbation of the west midlandsthe Birmingham conurbationwill suck police forces out of rural areas. That seems inevitable. The problems that are faced in the conurbations will always result in higher crime rates than in rural areas. I do not see how there will be protection. I would be grateful if he could reassure me about that.
	Secondly, there is the issue of accountability. Warwickshire police force is accountable to one county council, five district councils, five crime and disorder reduction partnerships and five Members of Parliament. If I want to speak to the chief constable, it is very easy, and, to be frank, there are so few of us that he has to take my call, but in the case of the west midlands police force, there will be about 70 Members of Parliament, about 14,000 policemen and about 32 basic command units. He will be as far from rural Warwickshire, or rural Staffordshire, or rural Shropshireboth in his head and geographicallyas it is possible to be. He is going to say, Gee, they don't have any problems in south Warwickshire. Crime there is half the rate it is in Wolverhampton. I am worrying about Wolverhampton. There must be some accountability in relation to the basic command unit.
	Thirdly, we do not have the ability to manage forces of that size. I know that the Met is held up an example and I think that the police force is quite strong on leadership in some areas, but it is not particularly good on management. It is a feature of the public sector that it does not appreciate or put into operation a distinction between leadership and management. The management of a force of 14,000 policemen and probably 6,000 or 7,000 civilians is a really big task. We have not proved at all that we are up to that. I am concerned that the Government never allowed us to examine the two-tier option. We could have done, because it exists in many other countries. France and the United States are two examples. We could have had a west midlands police force that dealt with big serious crimes and strategic issues, built in the necessary resilience, and dealt with terrorism, intelligence, and serious and organised crime. We could also have kept a Warwickshire police force, and other county forces, to deal with community policing.
	The police say that there would be a problem of interaction between the two forces. That is true, but that exists at the moment between head office and basic command units. That would be a small price to pay for getting the two objectives that we want. The Government want a high level force to work well, but are sacrificing the value of community policing and community accountability at a lower level. A two-tier force would at least have given us the best of both those worlds and it would have been worth examining the issue of the weaknesses in communicationoften clues about big, serious, organised crime are picked up at local levels by community officers. That would have been a smaller price to pay than the one that we are paying in the Government's reorganisation proposals. I bitterly regret that we were never given the opportunity to consult on that. We should have been, because, as I say, we are reorganising the forces for a generation.
	I hope that the Minister can deal with the question of community accountability at a basic command unit level, or some other level that means somethingrather than just having a dotted line that involves going along and talking to the district council once every three months. There should be a real obligation to take notice of what locally elected politicians and communities want.
	The resources for community policing in rural areas should be protected from the demands and inevitable predations of policing and crime problems in urban areas. We all pay our taxes. The transition costs in the west midlands are estimated to be 50 million and the annual savings 30 million. When I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, I was told that part of the police's capital budget for those two years had been set aside to pay for that. I am glad that the money is not coming out of the current budget, because then it would be a long time before we saw the benefit of any savings, but I am concerned that the money is coming out of the capital budget. Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means? Does is mean that the police will not be able buy computers, fingerprint kits and police cars, or whatever else they need to buy out of their capital budgets, or that criminal justice centres will be set back?
	Finally, I would like some reassurance that the police precepts, which tend to be higher in rural than urban areas, will be allowed to find an average level without that being rigged. There will have to be one police precept across the west midlands under the new arrangements. Given that that will benefit rural areasalmost uniquely in the context of anything that the Government have done in that respect for nine yearsI suspect that local authority finance will be rigged to take that benefit away so that we will lose grant to make up for the fact that we have had our police precept reduced. I would like some reassurance on that, too.

Frank Cook: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and I always enjoy doing so, but, in following him, I realise that I have to try to match his eloquence. That is somewhat difficult, especially as I approach this issue with a very heavy heart.
	I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I had a huge backlog of admin work to do because I was in Committee all day yesterday, from morning until night, as the senior Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Education and Inspections Bill. I have to return to Committee very soon, so I will be making a bit of a breathless contribution to the debate. I want to complain not about policing standards, or police conduct and discipline, but the reorganisation.
	The matter is nothing new to the House because I secured an Adjournment debate on it in Westminster Hall. It was probably the most heavily attended debate on any subject discussed in Westminster Hall, and I must say that I enjoyed it. I spoke for rather too long, but nevertheless the subjects were covered in adequate detail.
	I point out to the Minister and the Government that ever since the topic came on the agenda and we were given three weeks in which to consider the proposal and come up with our options, I have consistently opposed it resolutely, in every syllable. I made the previous Home Secretary well aware of my opposition not only through the debate in Westminster Hall, but in private meetings with him and when he chose to raise the issue with me in the Tea RoomI did not chase him; he came to me. On each and every occasion, I had to make it plain to him and his then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), that I thought that the proposal was unjustified, unwarranted, illogical and unaffordable.
	I am not against change to the structure of the police force. Modernisation is certainly needed, as are re-equipping and new methods of detection and pursuit, especially to take account of the changes that are occurring in not only terrorism, but drug and commercial crime. However, simply coming up with a set of proposals, giving people three weeks to consider them, stating that options could be put forward, but sweeping those options to one side without even considering them, was not only illogical and impolite, but verging on the insane.
	I find it difficult to express myself in terms that are clear and polite. We were asked to concentrate on forces that would be able to supply 4,000 officers. When one questioned the basis for that figure, no logical justification was given. One then pointed out that there are forces in Scotlandthey will not be affected by the measure because it will not impinge on Scotland at all, which must be rather comforting for a Home Secretary who comes from Scotlandwith only 400 officers, so how are they going to survive and provide protective services if we must have forces with 4,000 officers in this country?

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Frank Cook: If I must.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is he aware of any evidence that is adduced to sustain the argument that that 4,000 is some sort of magic figure? The Leicestershire force, with 2,000 officers covering 1 million people, is being absorbed into one with 9,000 officers covering 4.5 million people, but that will create serious risks, especially in relation to localised policing. Is he aware of any such academic or other professional evidence?

Frank Cook: Search as I might in all sources available to me, I can find no justification for asserting that particular criterion. It does not bear examination or stand up to scrutiny for me, although it did for the former Home Secretary. I have to say to the Minister, who I see is assiduously making notes, that although I can offer him sympathy in his new job and welcome him to it, I cannot offer him supporthe will not get it from me.
	We were told that there was to be no money, so the forces were supposed to change livery, get new equipment, reorganise themselves and restaff new establishments with no money. We asked about the police preceptwe heard about that earlierand were told that it would take care of itself, but will it? After last Thursday, I do not suppose that that will be very much the Labour party's problem in the next five or 10 years if what we experienced in the south happens in the north.
	We were told much later that the money would be provided. Ah, fine, said I, when I returned to this country after duty abroad, They've found the money. Okay, that's another one of my arguments gone, so I'm a little weaker than I was before. However, I was told, Yes, Frank, but there's no new money. I asked where the money would come from. I was told that it would come from the Home Office, and when I asked where the Home Office would get it from, I was told, Oh, they'll find it somewhere, but then we heard about the financial problems with the Home Office. The whole situation is approaching a fantasy. Walt Disney ought to make an epic on this oneit is absolutely crazy.
	I have tried to conduct my arguments through correspondence, so I have quite a large file. I have also had to argue with some policemen who seem keen for the changes to go through, although I must say that they are the ones who think that they will get the top jobs. I hope that the Minister will take this point seriously and make it his business to watch the interview with the chief constable of West Mercia in a recent episode of HARDtalk on BBC News 24. The interview will give him great cause for a rethink. There was a man who was special branch and had anti-terror responsibilities, with a remarkable record and a force with an astonishing track record on policing efficiency. He was really given a hard time by Stephen Sackurhe was not on a soft hook at allbut gave a great account of himself, as have many police officers throughout the country who object right from their roots to the form of the reorganisation. It is not that they are against reorganisationthey will go for it if it is needed. However, they are professionals. They are right into policing and have spent their lives doing it, although the previous Home Secretary and the Minister have not, as I have not. I am not an expert. The only thing that I am an expert in is mediocrity.

Michael Fabricant: Not true.

Frank Cook: You betI will prove it.
	I appeal to the Minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, please, please, please go back and think again. Go back and re-examine, and think about the 82 per cent. of the people throughout the north-east who want a referendum. Go back and think of the 65 per cent. of people throughout the north-east who do not want the merger. Those people are talking to us. We are in the House because of the people. They send us here and pay us to be here, so let us listen to them for heavens sakewe might make history.
	I do not enjoy voting against my Government and party, although I have done, I think, about 14 times in 23 years. It has always been painful, but I do it because of my consciencebelieve it or not, I have got one. On this issue, the Government cannot count on my support, so I beg youI apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg you too, in a way. I beg the Government: for God's sake, think again.

Owen Paterson: It is a great honour and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook). He made a powerful speech, and spoke extremely well when he landed his debate in Westminster Hall.
	I endorse virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman said. He may have been out of the Chamber when I intervened on the matter of Scotland, but the situation is rather worse. A report in  Scotland on Sunday suggested that party insiders are saying that the enormous Strathclyde police force may be broken up because, according to certain members of the Labour party, it is not close enough to the community. We are subject to the extraordinary constitutional outrage of a Home Secretary from Scotland, who has no remit whatsoever for the Strathclyde police force, dictating to usin the north-east in the hon. Gentleman's case, or to the West Mercia force in mineand forcing a massively unpopular amalgamation when his own party is doing exactly the opposite, back in his own home patch. On those grounds alone, this process is illegitimate and the Government should think again.
	The process is illegitimate also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has said, because of the outrageous rush with which it has been conducted. On 16 September, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary published the report entitled Closing the Gap, which referred to the utterly arbitrary figure of 4,000 police officers.
	My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), was talking about resources. The issue is not all about resources, but some of us are caught financially. I am not making a call for more money, but it should be noted that West Mercia constabulary receives 94.38 per head from central Government while North Wales police receives 116. If West Mercia received the same as North Wales, our force would be well over 4,000 strong. If that were so, I would probably not be speaking in this debate, because there would not be an issue to discuss. As we have only 2,380 officers, we are, however, caught by the absurd black-and-white figure of 4,000, for which there is no basis.
	The West Mercia force has a splendid chief constable in Paul West. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, he was given a hard time last night on television, but really stood up for himself. There is also a strong police authority under Paul Deneen. The force polices a huge areaShropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire. Despite the low rate of funding per head from central Government, when the HMIC base-line assessment and the police standards unit assessment of performance is taken into account, which includes level 2 performanceit must be the most comprehensive independent assessment of police forces, which took place in the autumnWest Mercia was rated as the No. 1 police force in the country. In terms of geographical area, that force is responsible for the fourth largest in the country. Yet we are to be rushed headlong, helter-skelter, into an amalgamation with Warwickshire, Staffordshire and the west midlands force.
	A document was issued on 16 September, and the Home Secretary wrote to the police authority on 22 September saying, in effect, You have got to be amalgamated and 4,000 is the limit. I have been involved in this matter and meetings took place down here. For instance, I got the chief constable and the chairman to meet the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). Our chief constable was pretty straight with the hon. Lady and told her that it was nothing short of scandalous to reconfigure British policing in a few weeks. He said to her, directly:
	In my professional judgment as a Chief of a high-performing force
	he was being modest because it is the highest-performing force
	in a regional structure it would be extremely difficult to give the same level of performance as at present in West Mercia.
	To touch on my political neighbour's comments on local policing, the chief constable said:
	BCU commanders will have much less influence. The proposal is untested and the regional model is not supported by the people of West Mercia. The way it is being imposed is outrageous; there is scant regard for professional advice on the ground.
	Most importantly, the chief constable said:
	Level 2 could be delivered by collaboration and joint working.
	As an example with regard to level 2, West Mercia officers are not only helping the West Midlands force after the incident at Lozells last year but helping the Met following the bombings last year. West Mercia officers are also in the Balkans helping authorities there. There must be collaboration across forces and we support that, but that does not mean subordination and a complete loss of the relationship between the smaller local force and the people.
	In the Westminster Hall debate

Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman consider for a second the amount of co-operation that took place between different and various police forces during the miners' strike?

Owen Paterson: I was pursuing another profession at the time of the miners' strike and I am not qualified to speak about that. However, I am sure that there was collaboration. I am sure also that the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. There has always been collaboration between forces. The issue has been made even more pertinent following the arrival of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said. SOCA is carrying out level 2 strategic work on terrorism, so there is no need to go through this massively expensive and unpopular process of amalgamation. Local policing should be as near as possible to local people.
	As a final crushing comment, Paul West said:
	This is not some superficial numbers game. The analysis of 4,000, if written by a GCSE statistics student, would have been returned.
	That is the opinion of the professional. I repeat that that is the view of the chief constable of the No. 1 police force in the country. His view on statistics were supported by Tony Lawrance, who is professor of statistics at the University of Warwick. He published a statistically based opinion which completely undermined the HMIC review, which is the only basis for the figure of 4,000.
	I suggest that professors of statistics are not commonly known for colourful or exciting language, but I shall give a flavour of one of Tony Lawrance's comments. He said:
	This is an almost perfect example of how not to present a graph no scales on either axis, no data plotted to justify the lines drawn. It is almost impossible to obtain any critical understanding from it, except that it is intended to prove that score for protective capability increases with force size...I can see little hard evidence in pages 30 and 31 to justify the figure of 4,000.
	Touching on collaboration, that professor of statistics went on to say:
	Effectiveness of smaller forces depends on arrangements they have to deal with policing matters which outstretch their resources, by collaboration with adjacent forces. If these are good then they are effective. This would apply to the larger forces and the most serious matters needing massive response.
	That is exactly as was cited.

David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman fear for the amalgamation in which his own force will be involved, which is parallel to the concern that many, including me, have in the east midlands, where forces such as Leicestershire and Derbyshiregood and effective forces that are adjacent to Nottinghamshire, which, unfortunately, has a higher than average crime rate and other concernsface the prospect of resources being sucked in that will weaken the existing effective structures in those forces, which were always good? Leicestershire has always been good at collaborating and in dealing with serious and organised crimes, drug offences and terrorism.

Owen Paterson: I entirely agree with that. There is no question that the targets will be set by the Home Office; those targets will be set by conurbations that are big centres of population and big crime centres. The current efficient handling of crime matters and policing in areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman and myself will definitely be damaged. That is inevitable.
	I return to the professor, whose comments are extremely relevant. Time and again the Government come back to HMIC. They say, We are only following what HMIC says. It is one man's opinion, which is trashed by Tony Lawrance, a professor of statistics, who has said:
	It is hard to believe that professional statisticians were heavily involved in planning, analysing and presenting the quantitative information used by the report, or suggesting conclusions to be drawn from it.
	His conclusion is damning. He says:
	The quality of the statistical information gathered for the HMIC report...is questionable. The statistical treatment of the data collected is largely unjustified and appears open to criticism in its combination of scores. The graphical presentation of the data is poor and trend lines could be misleading; The use of computer-produced statistical collaboration is unjustified...The conclusions drawn in respect of the 4,000 minimum force size almost totally ignores the variability of protected services performance at each force size, and no evidence is provided that this will be small at the 4,000 level.
	How can the Government base the largest change in policing in 100 years on a report that is utterly flawed in its basic statistics?

Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in accepting interventions. Did the professor make a comparison between the HMIC report and the report that was jointly published two years before by the Home Office and Downing street, which rejected the proposal? The Home Secretary, however, has refused to allow me sight of that report.

Owen Paterson: No, the professor's analysis was purely of the HMIC report. Given that it is constantly thrown at us as the justification for a revolution in British policing, it is pertinent that a politically neutral professor of statistics rubbishes the data. Even though he uses such extraordinarily colourful language, the Government continue to produce that report as evidence.
	Given that basic evidence and given that it is extremely unpopular, the proposal is illegitimate. The Prime Minister said before the Liaison Committee:
	the reorganisation of local police is something where it really is sensible to listen to local people.
	On 18 January, he said:
	It is important that we listen to local people, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do so.[ Official Report, 18 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 836.]
	A week later, on 25 January, he said:
	Obviously, we will listen carefully to what people say.
	Later that day, he said:
	I entirely accept that some people are in favour of mergers, that some are against them and that some are in between. We will have to take a decision on what is best for local forces, but we will do so listening to what local people say. In the end, surely, what we both want to see is the most effective form of policing.[ Official Report, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426-29.]
	A comprehensive survey of public opinion has taken place in West Mercia. Not one of the area's 13 Members of Parliament wrote to the police authority to support the regional proposal, including a Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who is now a Government Whip and, lo and behold, the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the Government Chief Whip. None of the county and unitary councils supports the measure, and neither do any of the nine district councils. None of the 108 parish and town councils supports it, and neither do the 11 police consultative groups or 15 community groups. They all support the proposal that West Mercia should become a strategic force, achieving that rank using its own resources. In more than 100 public meetings, overwhelming support has been expressed for the proposal that West Mercia handle level 2 crimes.
	In a telephone poll, 94 per cent. of respondents were in favour of West Mercia promoting itself to level 2 within its own boundaries. Similarly, 96 per cent. of written responses supported West Mercia as a level 2 force. Why on earth do the Government think that the proposal, if it is rammed through, will be legitimate? The Minister effectively said that carefully selected Government toadies will have a little debate in a closed Statutory Instrument Committee to enable the measure to go through.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend will have had conversations with police officers in his area, as I have had in mine. Those officers say that they police the public with the public's consent, and that they cannot do otherwise. If the measure goes through without public consent, as he clearly demonstrated, that will not assist the strengthening of the relationship that the police need to have with the public, and with which they have had difficulty in the past few years and months.

Owen Paterson: That is a prescient intervention, as I was about to say that policing began as a civic duty in Elizabethan times. Then, as now, jury service was a civic duty and, the citizenry were also the police. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, because Sir Robert Peel's second principle stated that
	the ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police...actions.
	Sir Robert continued:
	Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public: the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence.
	In 1839, the royal commission on policing recommended that there should be a national police force, but that recommendation was rejected by Parliament, which understood that policing could work only with public support and co-operation.
	Having cited the figures, how can the Minister possibly believe that a new west midlands force will have any support or legitimacy, given the strength of public opinion? On 14 February, the West Mercia police authority unanimously rejected the merger proposal, and it supported my calls for the local referendum that is the subject of amendment No. 82. Only yesterday, seven policy authority chairmen from all parties stated that opinion polls show overwhelming public opposition, and pointed out that only two police authorities have volunteered to proceed with mergers. Some of them have initiated legal proceedings to halt the process; West Mercia will pursue the legal avenues against the measure, and it will seek judicial review at every stage. Last night, the chief constable appeared on HARDtalk, and gave a robust defence in the face of probing questions from Stephen Sackur.

Stewart Jackson: Is my hon. Friend concerned about something that has not been mentioned in our debatethe negative impact on the morale of police officers and other staff? He is fortunate to have one of the best performing police forces in the country. On the other side of the equation, however, my force is in the bottom 10 per cent, but the ill-thought-out proposals will have a massive impact on staff morale and performance in both the best-performing and worst-performing forces.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is quite rightthere will be chaos when the proposal is introduced. On the television last night, my chief constable made the point that there will be only one winner. There will be only one chief constable and one deputy, so four good deputies and four good chief constables will be fired. The police will lose a huge swathe of experience across the country, as chief constables, their deputies and other senior personnel such as financial staff will go. It is an extraordinary act of vandalism to get rid of that talent, given that SOCA, which should handle level 2 crime, only began its operations in April, and that forces such as West Mercia have proved that they can handle level 2 crime.
	This is a bizarre story, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North said. The measure was rushed through at a week's notice on the basis of a bogus report and utterly false statistics that have been rubbished. It will be rammed through in my area in the face of extraordinary public opinionI have cited opposition of 94 and 96 per cent. It lacks legitimacy and it has been rammed through in the teeth of professional advice from the most successful chief constable in the country and from police chairmen, who have made it clear that they will take legal action against the Government. To suggest that it can be introduced without a local referendum is insane, so I support amendment No. 82.

Stewart Jackson: This important issue has not received the airtime that it deserves. I shall confine my contribution to police structures. The Bill generally is a missed opportunity and will do nothing to tackle the underlying issuethe scourge of crime and disorder. The Prime Minister, we are told, is always looking for actions that will be his legacy. In the wake of the removal of the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) from the post of Home Secretary, one could have been to listen to the massive opposition of people throughout the country to these ill thought-out proposals and to tackle the last bastion of restrictive practices, sclerotic working practices, bureaucracy, inefficiency and buck-passing. I am not speaking about ordinary policemen and women.
	Under the Bill, we are moving, although the Government would no doubt deny it, towards a national police force, entrenching central control by the Home Secretary and the Home Office and reducing local accountability, not least by changing the role and responsibilities of members of police authorities. Some of the proposals in the Bill begin to infringe on operational police matters.
	Through the Bill, we are embedding the general concept that senior police officers should be accountable upwards from their local area to the Home Office, not accountable downwards to residents, taxpayers, or even Members of Parliament and local elected councillors. We have strategic plans, police performance assessments, national policing plans, frameworks, the national policing improvement agency and so on. They are all part of a centralised, top-down, tick-box culture. The views of long-suffering residents are largely irrelevant. More importantly, the proposed reforms will have no discernible effect on the reduction of crime.
	Nothing so perfectly sums that up as the obdurate disdain for the views of local people that we have seen from the Government over the past six months. In the teeth of opposition from hon. Members in all parts of the House, not least hon. Members from north Wales and other Labour Members, the forced police amalgamation plans are unwanted and unworkable and are being foisted on local authorities by the departed right hon. Member for Norwich, South.
	I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire and Suffolk police authorities for refusing to be bullied into a so-called voluntary amalgamation. I commend to the House the views of Councillor Ian Bates, the leader of Huntingdonshire district council in Cambridgeshire, who challenged the Home Office unilaterally to submit its proposals for Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk to a plebiscite of local people, to gauge whether the Government have a mandate to wreck the police service in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk. Like the councillor, I believe that the Government's plans are hasty, intellectually incoherent, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, and flawed.
	Councillor Bates asked some pertinent questions of the Home Office, which bear repetition. He pointed out that the amalgamations will detract from the ongoing operational improvements that we have seen in Cambridgeshire, such as Operation Harrier, a major drugs operation in Peterborough three years ago. The amalgamations will have a major impact on operational and financial risk. They will undermine the concept of neighbourhood policing. It is interesting that the Minister fought his own successful by-election campaign in Hodge Hill on neighbourhood policing and other policing issues, yet there is a dichotomy between neighbourhood policing and the drive towards regional government and regional policing, which he must know is motivating many of his hon. Friends to oppose the proposals.
	As I said earlier, morale is a major issue. Cambridgeshire could be construed as a failing authority, but we are through the worst, things are improving and the force has the strong leadership of Chief Constable Julie Spence. Yet all the senior officers in the three counties are now engaged in a game of musical chairs to try to get the best position. They are, therefore, focusing not on crime, but on new badges, new management suites, new structures and new buildings.
	Questions remain. Will the Home Office meet all the net costs associated with mergers? I listened to the Minister but I remain unconvinced by the damascene conversion. What will the impact be on my constituents' council tax bills? Will democratic and lay justice representation be the same in Cambridgeshire as in Norfolk and Suffolk, under the proposals? Will the Home Office grant remain the same to fund more police, community support officers and other specialist police operational needs, in 2007 and in 2008? We know that the Government are obsessed with change, reform and altering structures. There will inevitably be consultancy costs for the amalgamations and reorganisations. Who will pay them? I do not want taxpayers in the Peterborough constituency to pay for the Government's administrative folly.
	I fear that the Bill focuses on structures and ignores people's everyday experience of crime and disorder. Last week I visited South Bretton, part of the Peterborough Development Corporation development in the west of my constituency, where residents were plagued by youth crime and appalling antisocial behaviour. They were miserable about that and about the response from the police. I am taking the matter up with the chief constable. One lady who works on the night shift in a local factory told me in tears that she fears coming home from her shift. She knows she will not sleep because she is worried about criminal damage, harassment and youth crime. Is that any way to live?
	What will be the outcome of the amalgamations? Will decent tax-paying people see a reduction in crime? Yes, we have action areas, a prolific and priority offender strategy, a joint working party locally, a safer schools partnership and a local respect action plan, and goodness me, there is a respect academy in the pipeline.

Jeremy Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the scenario that he is describing, his constituents and mine are likely to find that not only are police management structures further away from them, but so is democratic accountability for the police? Larger police forces will have elected or partly elected police authorities, further removed geographically and in their thinking from the people about whom my hon. Friend and I are worried.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am extremely concerned that we will see reductions in full-time police officer numbers in basic command units, as we have seen in Peterborough over the past three years. Fifty-two full-time police officers have been lost, and violent crime has risen from 2,761 offences in 2001 to 5,827 in 2005. In my basic command unit, detection rates are 15 per cent. for burglary, 28 per cent. for sexual offences and 20 per cent. for robbery. I worry that the democratic deficit that will be a consequence of huge regional police forces will mean that the particular policing needs of my constituency and other urban areas will be ignored, as will the specialist policing needs of rural areas under the new regional structure, as my hon. Friends have pointed out.
	The changes will do nothing to stop the erosion of people's faith in the criminal justice system. I make no bones about my views. In my maiden speech on 6 June last year, I called for an elected police official for Cambridgeshire. If such an official is called a sheriff, that is fine. I believe that that is important, because I believe that the democratic deficit must be filled.
	Accountability is needed not only on policing, but on prosecutions at a local level. I know that that issue is slightly different, but it relates to people's lack of faith in how structures work now. Council tax payers in the Peterborough unitary authority area now pay 46 a head for local policing compared with 20 a head in 1998, and I could entertain the House, if that is the right word, with many similar examples.
	The Bill reveals the Government's fetish for structures, rather than focusing on delivery of outcomes. The Government want to talk about structures and avoid real reform, and the police service needs real reform. We need proper accountability by means of an elected sheriff or similar official. We must reform the pay and conditions of police officers, which should relate to skills, competence and results in combating crime, rather than length of service, Buggins' turn or the canteen culture. Incidentally, I speak as the son of a policeman and as the brother of two policemen, one of whom is serving and the other of whom is an ex-policeman.
	We need to move away from situations in which policemen have two jobs.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been fairly generous with the hon. Gentleman, but he is going very wide of the new clause and amendments under discussion.

Stewart Jackson: I am grateful for your tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The proposals do nothing to tackle crime as it affects my constituents and others. There are many examples of best practice across the country, such as Middlesbrough and Essex. We must solve the epidemic of street crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has said, it is important that the police are supported and have the active sanction of local residents and local voters. For that reason, I cannot understand why the Government, who pay lip service to involvement and engagement at a local level, are afraid of the views of local people. They may have had their nose bloodied in the referendum in the north-east, but they may win the next referendum. Why are they afraid to put their views and policies to the vote and to trust the people, our constituents?

Simon Burns: I support amendment No. 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) in their impassioned plea for greater democratic accountability through a referendum on the Home Office's extraordinary policy of merging police forces.
	I had thought, perhaps naively, that, given last Friday's change of regime in the light of last Thursday's disastrous local election results for the Government, new Ministers might have had the nous to review whether it was sensible to proceed with a set of mergers that has united the vast majority in local communities against the Government's proposal. As the Minister said in his introductory comments, however, the new regime at the Home Office is not prepared to think again, and it seems determined to continue the mistakes of the old regime.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has said, we have a police service and police system that carries out its duties with the consent of the population. One criticism made over a period is that there is not enough communication and visibility between local communities and the local police force, which relates to the introduction in the '60s and '70s of motorised policemen rather than bobbies on the beat. Community after community and politician after politician have called for more bobbies on the beat, and in the past decade or so there has been a realisation that the needs and desires of the local community must be met. In my county of Essex, for example, the chief constable took over relatively recently, and we have seen a deliberate and successful policy to ensure that there are more policemen on the beat not only to reassure the local population, but to deter opportunistic crime. That approach has strengthened links between the local police force and the community, and the problem with mergers that create large police areas is that that local affinity will be broken.
	Essex is one of the largest counties in the country geographically as well as one of the largest in terms of population, at just less than 2 million. To many people, Essex should, could and, I believe, must have a stand-alone police force, but we were told by the previous Home Secretarythis is being continued by the new Home Secretarythat Essex must be merged against its wishes and those of all national politicians in the county. Those politicians do not include the hon. Members for Harlow (Bill Rammell) and for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), who, to be fair to them, are bound by collective responsibility as members of the Government and have not therefore voiced an opinion. However, the other Labour MP in the county, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), is totally against the proposal, as are Liberal Democrat MPs and all the Conservative MPs. The Prime Minister told us at Question Time that the Government would listen to the wishes of local people. The campaigns by hon. Members, local authorities, the police authority and the chief constable in Essex have made it plain that Essex wants to remain a stand-alone force and not be merged.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Burns: With respect, I will not. This debate has been going on for almost two hours, but the hon. Gentleman has hardly been present in the Chamber.
	Despite all the representations and wishes of the local community, the Government refuse to listen and allow Essex to remain as a stand-alone force. That has confused many people in Essex, because the next-door county, Kent, has been allowed to remain as a stand-alone police authority, as has Hampshire. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured me that it is not because the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee happens to be a Hampshire MP and that there are a number of highly marginal Labour seats in north Kent that those counties have been allowed to have their way, while Essex has not.
	Amendment No. 2 is particularly attractive, because the Government, despite the promises and rhetoric of the Prime Minister, are not prepared to listen. When the previous Home Secretary told the House that he would listen to the views of people in the next phase of the process, I asked whether he would listen if the overwhelming majority of people in Essex voted in a referendum in favour of keeping a stand-alone force, and he at least had the decency to say that he would not. That shows that the Government have paid lip service to listening to local people and consultations, which are a waste of time. They have no intention of listening.
	As was said earlier, the last Home Secretary put before the House a set of proposals that he was determined to maintain, come hell or high water, and for appearance's sake he came out with all the usual platitudes about listening and consultation, but with no intention whatever of paying attention to what he was told or what he heard in the consultations. That is what is so frustrating, and it shows that we should have more referendums in this country, so that issues can be put to the people. If those most directly affected by proposals overwhelmingly support what the Government are doingthe evidence up and down the country seems to be that they do notthey can vote for the mergers in a referendum. If they are not supportive of what the Government are effectively ramming down their throats, they can vote no, and the Government would have to abide by the result, failing to continue with the mergers. That would follow as a result of the context set out in our amendments.
	That is the best way forward and I shall certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. I hope that anyone else who is disgusted, upset or disappointed by the Government's attempt to create these large police forces, which so few people want, will join us, so that we can force the Government to listen to the people, if they are not prepared to do so voluntarily.

Crispin Blunt: I apologise to the House for having missed the first part of the debate, but it was for the good reason that I was finishing the details of a letter that all 11 Surrey Members are sending to the new Home Secretary, begging him to review the proposals to merge the constabularies of Surrey and Sussex. I shall focus my remarks on amendment No. 82. The letter that I mentioned is now on its way to the new Home Secretary.
	I have listened to the passionate arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has led a fantastic campaign to try to save the West Mercia constabulary. He has built up an enormous level of public support, providing an object lesson to the rest of us. I can tell him that opinion in Surrey is equally resolute and determined to sustain the Surrey constabulary. We may not have had quite so many public meetings, but I have to say that, at the moment, we are both having precisely the same effect on the Governmentnone at all.
	I was intending to begin by larding the new Minister with praise for his wisdom and intellect. When one is on a hook and an opportunity to get off it presents itself, it seems sensible for one to take it. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) say that the Minister had made it clear in his opening remarks that he was determined to remain firmly on the hook, which was immensely disappointing. Speaking on behalf of all Surrey MPs, I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends representing the county believe that the only reason for larding Ministers is to put them on a spit over a large fire, particularly if they are going to continue to ignore all opinion within the county.
	I beg the MinisterI repeat, I beg himto re-examine the proposal. He may have noticed one or two other changes in the organisation of public authorities over the last nine years. Those who represent people across the piece as MPsI am speaking for myself and for hon. Members throughout the Houseare left bewildered about exactly who is doing what as a result of the various reorganisations. There is always a price to be paid with any reorganisation. Of course there will always be arguments for improving things by better co-ordination and more effective organisation, but this particular reorganisation of the police is pitched at one particular type of policinglevel 2 policing.
	The former chief constable of Surrey was an outstanding policeman, but I am sorry to say that his report has been taken and extended far beyond the remit that he would have anticipated as inspector of constabulary. I can tell the Minister that the price that will have to be paid for the reorganisation is simply not worth the benefits that it will produce.

John Gummer: Before my hon. Friend leaves his encomiumstillbornon the new Government Front Benchers, he might like to remind them that, particularly in view of the scant support for their proposals, they would not have so much difficulty with their own Back Benchers if they rowed back.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend puts the point extremely well. Far from there being any cost to the Government in withdrawing their proposals, there would be enormous benefits and great relief among the bodies that are going to have reorganisation imposed on them against their will. If police forces and police authorities believe that the reorganisation is a good thing, let them get on with it. I understand that there are one or two of them, and they will have to carry the people they represent on the police authority with them; that is their job.
	It has to be said that amendment No. 82 is a pretty desperate last throw of the dice as an attempt to rescue the position. I shall be voting for this desperate last throw, although I do not necessarily approve of the ideology of referendums and all the rest of it. The problem is that the official Opposition have nothing other than the amendment left to rescue the position.
	The Minister should reflect on what has happened in other public authoritieshealth and social services, for example, with whom the police are expected to co-operate. Under the latest health reorganisation in Surrey, we are moving towards having just one primary care trust for the county, so there is an opportunity for the borders of the PCT and the police to be coterminous. Yet just at the moment that we get health and social services in one shape around the county, along comes the reorganisation of the police, blowing all the potential benefits apart. Once again, I beg the Minister to think again. I know that opinion in Surrey is united on the matter.
	I finish by stressing the important issue of identity for the police force and the areas it represents. The county of Surrey has had a constabulary on a county level since 1851. Since then, we have seen other bits and pieces of constabularies representing towns or other communities as the area has developed, but only in the year 2000 was part of Surrey policed by the Metropolitan police. We have just gone through a reorganisation, affecting half of my constituency, whereby the Surrey police force has taken over from the Met and now, fewer than seven years on, we are facing yet another change to the senior management of the police force. I say again that the price of this reorganisation is simply not worth any conceivable benefit that will come from it.
	I add that as a marriage partner for the people of Sussex, the police of Surrey are a complete nightmare because the enormous subsidy that Surrey council tax payers give to their police dwarfs anything happening elsewhere in the UK. We have moved from a position in 1997 where 86 per cent. of the Surrey police's budget came from the Home Office vote to about 50 per cent. today. About half the money for Surrey police comes from Surrey council tax payers.
	Surrey county councillors will wonder why they should vote taxes on to their council tax payers for a police force that is no longer theirs. The council tax payers of Surrey, led by their county councillors, have decided to protect their police force from the huge changes and swingeing cuts in funding that it has undergone since 1997. That determination on the part of Surrey county councillors has worked to the benefit of policing in Surrey and of the central Government budget, which has been significantly subsidised, in that respect and in many others, by the council tax payers of Surrey. The loyalty of the people of Surrey, through their police authority, to their police will disappear, along with any reasons for it, if it is no longer their police force. Yet that is what the Government propose to do.
	I beg the Government, as do my 10 right hon. and hon. Friends who are writing to the Home Secretary today, to review this decision. I will support amendment No. 82 in the rather desperate hope that it will enable us to prevent this measure going forward, but it would be infinitely better if the Home Office took the opportunity of a new team reviewing the situation to pull this dreadful proposal.

Richard Shepherd: I, too, support amendment No. 82.
	I represent a constituency on the far east of the west midlands area, in the metropolitan borough of Walsall. The drift of modern politics is anything but local. We refer to local government, but Walsall is no more local than a fly in the air. We talk about local policing, but we are constructing great structures that are questionable as regards whether they will meet the tests of loyalty and a sense of time and place that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) mentioned.
	If it would be a comfort to my hon. Friends and to my friends in Staffordshire, West Mercia or elsewhere in the greater west midlands, I would stand up for the principle of localism and the right to local policing. I note with regret that my own constituents in Aldridge-Brownhillsin Pelsall, Streetly, Rushall, and all the communities that form it, which are very much part of Staffordshire, historically and by linkage to the coalfields of south Staffordshirehave very little confidence, alas, in the policing that they are experiencing. We are divided between two command units based in Walsall and Bloxwich. They report, in theory, to central Birmingham, and a chief constable makes his dispensations. We are already some way down the line; goodness knows what would happen to Staffordshire or West Mercia if we were to go yet further down that line.
	The sense of localism is important. The mantra is, Let the people feel confident with their institutions and structures. In all my political career, the attachment to those structures has shrunk. We should let the people speak. That used to be a cry of the Liberal party, and I would expect it to stand up for that localism and the rights of people as regards the things that most matter to themeducation, a health service and policing. As I said, in the former villages now coalesced into Aldridge-Brownhills, there is little confidence in centralised policing .
	The huge proposed west midlands area gives us even less confidence that Bloxwich and Walsall will manage with due diligence the affairs and protection of the people of Aldridge-Brownhills. In vast structures, people do not look laterally or downwards, but upwards. This Government can testify to that. My chief superintendents want to curry favour with the chief constable, who in turn wants the indulgence of the Home Office and the Home Secretary. We become so utterly centralised that it squeezes out the judgment as to who is competent and who is incompetent.
	This is a question of how the way in which we govern ourselves through our central administrationsthrough the Home Office and through Whitehall itselfechoes what the people of the country want. We speak from our local perspective; we vote with the party machine. That reinforces the strength of the centre. Where we over-centralisethat is what the whole Bill is essentially aboutin the health service, education and the police service, we see the decline and fall of public confidence in those institutions. I hope that the House takes the amendment seriously and votes for it.

Bob Russell: I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to support the case that he was making, but he has not returned to his seat in the past 15 or 20 minutes or so. He expressed the view of all Essex Members of Parliament, the district councils, the borough councils and the unitary authorities. We now have an opportunity for the Government to get off the hook on which they have put themselves in defending a line that everybody acknowledges is unpopular.
	I invite the Minister to explain why Essex, with a population that is larger than several sovereign nation states in the European Union, is deemed incapable of having its own police force, whereas Kent, on the other side of the River Thames, is apparently competent to do so. The people of Essex are perfectly entitled to ask why that is okay for Kent but not for Essex. If there were to be mergers in the six counties of the east of England, the logical amalgamation would have been of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. We are getting the worst of all worlds.

John Gummer: Lest it go unnoticed, Suffolk does not wish to be amalgamated with Essex, Norfolk or Cambridgeshire. It is one of the best police forces in the country. The Government cannot find any support for any such amalgamations, so the hon. Gentleman should not tempt me on Essex.

Bob Russell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my point. If there were to be a case for amalgamationI am not accepting that there isthose three eastern counties would be more logical than the artificial creation of Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. A readers' survey in the  Colchester Evening Gazette showed that the solution that the Government have come up with is complete nonsense. There is absolutely no community of interest between the counties of Essex and Bedfordshire. A few communities on the Essex-Herts border may speak the same language, but if the Government are suggesting that there is a logical community of interest right across Essex, the most populous county in the east of England, and up into Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, they must have a different map of the United Kingdomor rather England and Walesfrom the one that I have.
	I recognise that there is a requirement to hold the line on what has been inherited, but I urge the Minister and the new Home Office team to listen to what is being said by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That would be to their advantage. I recognise that the Government will whip the vote through, no doubt with the assistance of Scottish votes. However, I hope that after a few days' reflection they will say, Is this right? What is more importantholding the line on what the previous Home Secretary proposed or what is right for the police forces of England and Wales?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for his warm words of congratulation and I sincerely look forward to debating many issues with him.
	The hon. Gentleman ranged widely beyond the Bill, as is his right, to the subject of amalgamations, as did the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Colchester (Bob Russell), along with my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), in whose Disney epic I look forward to appearing.
	Amalgamation is not the subject of the Bill, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I confine my remarks on the matter to only two points. First, there is a balance to be struck between accountability and effectiveness. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon put his finger on the nature of that balance. The Government are not the first Administration to be worried about the current structure of police forces. I recently read a Government report that was written not too long ago and stated:
	This pattern
	of 43 forces
	is partly the result of historical accident and the merging of organisations which were established haphazardly over more than 100 years... The result today is a patchwork quilt of forces of widely varying sizes and types.
	It continued:
	The Government considers that for all these reasons it may be desirable in the long term to reduce the number of police forces.
	That is taken from the police reform White Paper of June 1993.
	Governments of all persuasions have therefore realised for some time that effectiveness must be tackled. When Her Majesty's chief inspector puts the question in such stark terms, surely it is right for the Government to respond.

Jeremy Wright: Will the Minister give way?

Liam Byrne: I shall not because we have debated the matter at length.
	It is right to add accountability to the mix and that is precisely why the measure does so much to strengthen the basic command units by making them coterminous with local authorities and giving police authorities the right to devolve functions and powers to members of local partnerships. The Bill enshrines the community call for action and gives new powers to local police forces.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was right to say that genuine affinity and real relationships are built with local forces and local officers. That is why 18,000 more police community support officers will be recruited in the months and years to come.
	The second point is accountability for change. I am intrigued by the late conversion to referendums. I heard many of the arguments against and some of scepticism about them in the past. My political history is not especially strong, but I cannot remember Conservative calls for a referendum when the Greater London council was abolished. None the less, the conversion to referendums is a curious and interesting feature of modern political life.
	We elected the House for a purpose and it would be wrong to abrogate responsibility for decisions such as the one we are discussing. Any proposal that the Home Secretary makes is subject to affirmative resolution, not only in this House but in another place.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made one or two more points that I want to tackle. I am sorry that he has not received answers to the questions that he put to the Home Office. I shall personally try to ensure that they are forthcoming.
	The hon. Gentleman alluded to the ability to appoint additional deputy chief constables. We do not believe that that should be a free-for-all, which is why we seek the Home Secretary's sanction should that development occur. He also mentioned the national policing board. We are considering the case for such a non-statutory national board, which would need to reflect the tripartite nature of current arrangements.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is not in his place, mentioned the flexibility that we propose for the Home Secretary. I emphasise that it is devoted to one thingsecuring the improvement of policing in this country. I hope that he would sign up to that agenda.
	The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Peterborough mentioned restructuring costs. We said that we will meet 100 per cent. of the net costs of restructuring. That commitment covers capital and resources.
	I commend the new clause to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	  
	Supply of information to police etc by Registrar General

'(1) The Registrar General for England and Wales or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland may supply information contained in any register of deaths kept by him
	(a) to a police force in the United Kingdom,
	(b) to a special police force,
	(c) to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, or
	(d) to a person or body specified, or of a description specified, by order,
	for use in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences.
	(2) The power to make an order under subsection (1)(d) is exercisable
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, by the Registrar General for England and Wales with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
	(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, by the Secretary of State after consulting the Registrar General for Northern Ireland.
	(3) A Registrar General may charge a reasonable fee in respect of the cost of supplying information under this section.
	(4) The supply of information in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) may be made subject to conditions, including in particular conditions as to
	(a) the use and storage of the information;
	(b) the period for which any record of the information may be retained;
	(c) those to whom the information may be disclosed.
	(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be supplied apart from this section.
	(6) In this section special police force means
	(a) the Ministry of Defence Police;
	(b) the British Transport Police Force;
	(c) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
	(d) the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.'.  [Mr. Byrne.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 44, 48 and 80.

Liam Byrne: The purpose of the new clause is to give registrars general in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the statutory authority to share death registration information with the police, special police forces, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and other organisations specified by order, for use in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences.
	The primary purpose of the supply of such information is to allow the police and other organisations to identify attempts to perpetrate fraud by using the personal details of those who have recently died. The new clause will help us not only to combat such fraud but to mitigate the impact on recently bereaved relatives, who have to deal with the consequences of the identity of their loved ones being stolen.

Keith Vaz: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment as deputy Home Secretary. How will the new clause affect the review of the coroner service? It aims to improve the way in which death certification and the service operate.

Liam Byrne: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I shall ensure that I have chapter and verse about that before I write to him with a full and thorough answer.
	Death registration information is in the public domain as soon as a death is registered. Any person can obtain a copy of an entry in a death register in the form of a certificate, provided he or she can identify the entry and pay the statutory fee for the certificate. However, under current statutory provisions, it is available neither quickly enough to those organisations with an interest in preventing and detecting fraud involving the identity of a deceased person nor in a format that would assist them for those purposes.
	Identity crime is increasing. The UK's fraud prevention service estimates that there were 70,000 instances of fraud involving the identity of a deceased person in 2004, at a cost to our economy of 300 million. At the current rate of growth, that figure is forecast to reach 100,000 instances a year by 2007.
	The new clause and consequential amendments will allow us to stem the predicted increase by allowing registrars general in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to supply death registration information to specific organisations as soon as it becomes available to them. They will also be able to supply it in a format that can be used effectively by the police and others to help detect any attempt to use the identity of a deceased person.
	All the evidence supports the proposition that the most effective use of that information is in the period immediately following a death. Administrative arrangements will be in place to monitor the supply and use of the information. There will also be sanctions for its misusefor example, the suspension of the supply of information.

Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way a second time and I am grateful for his statement that he will write to me. Legislation on the new coroner service will be introduced this year. Is he satisfied that full consultation has taken place with the Department for Constitutional Affairs on the issues that we are considering? They have a direct impact on the work of the coroner service.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I am advised that the proposals to release death registration information will follow completion of the death registration process and should not, therefore, affect other proposals for the processes and procedures prior to the registration.
	Administrative arrangements will be put in place to monitor the supply and use of information. The ultimate sanction available to registrars general, should the information be misused, is the ability to withdraw the supply of information.
	Amendments Nos. 44, 48 and 80 are consequential on the new clause, which I commend to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	  
	Power to detain pending DPP's decision about charging

'In section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) (duties of custody officer before charge), in paragraph (a) of subsection (7) (officer's duties when he determines that there is sufficient evidence to charge), for shall be released without charge and on bail for the purpose there is substituted shall be
	(a) released without charge and on bail, or
	(b) kept in police detention,
	for the purpose.'. [Mr. Byrne.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 32, in page 7, line 15, leave out Clause 12.
	No. 33, in page 7 [Clause 12], leave out lines 27 to 32 and insert
	'with the object of punishing the offender are limited to conditions that the offender attend a specified place at specified times.
	(3AA) In subsection (3A) specified means specified by a relevant prosecutor.'.
	No. 36, in page 7 [Clause 12], leave out lines 37 and 38.
	No. 34, in page 7, line 38 [Clause 12], at end insert
	'(3D) The conditions attached to a conditional caution must not include a financial penalty.'.
	No. 35, in page 7 [Clause 12], leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 31 on page 8.
	No. 37, in page 8 [Clause 12], leave out lines 12 to 14.
	No. 40, in page 8 [Clause 13], leave out line 39 and insert
	(2) If a relevant prosecutor determines that a person arrested under this section has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any of the conditions attached to the conditional caution, the person arrested may be'.
	No. 38, in page 9, line 18 [Clause 13], after 'detention', insert
	'for up to 12 hours'.
	No. 39, in page 9, line 31 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'(6A) A person who is released following an arrest under this section shall not be re-arrested without warrant for the same suspected failure to comply with a condition attached to a conditional caution.'.
	No. 41, in page 9, line 31 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'(6B) A person arrested under this section may be released on bail (without any variation of the conditions attached to the caution) if further investigations are necessary for the purposes of determining whether he has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any of the conditions attached to the conditional caution.'.
	Government amendment No. 43.
	No. 28, in page 81, line 29 [Schedule 4], at end insert
	'(3C) Subject to subsection (3A), where a trained constable releases a person on bail under subsection (1) the trained constable may impose, as conditions of the bail, such requirements as appear to the trained constable to be necessary
	(a) to secure that the person does not commit an offence while on bail,
	(b) to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person, or
	(c) for the person's own protection, or if the person is under the age of 17, for the person's own welfare or in the person's own interests.'.
	No. 29, in page 81, line 32 [Schedule 4], at end insert
	'(4A) In this section a trained constable means a constable who has appropriate training and expertise to enable him to make a reasonable and informed assessment of the need for and proportionality of the conditions of bail.'.
	Government amendment No. 81.

Liam Byrne: The purpose of new clause 6 is to render crystal clear the provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984PACEpertaining to detention and bail. When a custody officer refers a case to the relevant Crown Prosecution Service lawyer, the options available to prosecutors under section 37 of the Act require the person to be either released on bail pending charge, released without charge and on bail but not for that purpose, released without charge and without bail, or charged.
	A sensible reading of PACE would allow detention for a relatively short and reasonable time for a quick decision from the CPS, but PACE does not contain an explicit provision for a person to be detained while a charging decision is made. In order to avoid any confusion on the issue, new clause 6 and consequential amendment No. 81 make specific provision to allow a custody officer to detain in order to await the decision of the prosecutor.
	Guidance will make it clear that such a power should be exercised only when a decision is expected from the prosecutor within a maximum of no more than three hours; that the custody officer must ensure that this period is not used simply as a means to keep a person in police detention; and that the custody officer must first consider the suitability and appropriateness of the person to be granted bail from police custody. The decision remains a matter for the custody officer.
	Amendment No. 43 makes a minor technical change to clause 35. As the clause is drafted, only offenders sentenced to custody following conviction for offences under the Bail Act 1976 in the magistrates court could be awarded extra days for disciplinary offences. This provision will maintain the status quo for this group of offenders.
	I shall now turn to the amendments in this group that were tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), whom I am delighted to see in her place. I shall start with amendments Nos. 32 to 37. One of the key measures in the Bill is the extension of conditional cautions. They have been trialled in a number of areas, and they have been very successful in dealing with low-level offenders who admit their offence. However, under the existing scheme, conditions may be applied only in cases either where there is a clear injured party who has suffered measurable loss or where the offending behaviour is attributable to a personal problem, such as alcohol dependency. We want to extend this scheme.

David Davies: The Minister just said that cautions had been very successful in dealing with persistent offenders. What is the reconviction rate of people who have been cautioned?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman slightly misheard what I said. I said that conditional cautions had been trialled in a number of areas, and that the results from those pilot areas had shown the trials to be successful. We want to extend the scheme to include a broader range of offenders, including those who admit drunk and disorderly offences, which damage the community, and those who have already received a fixed penalty notice for similar offences and whose offending therefore requires a tougher sanction. Furthermore, we want to include instances where direct reparation is not possible, perhaps because the damage has already been repaired. By including punishment as an explicit additional aim of the scheme, clause 12 will enable indirect reparation to be required as a condition. It therefore opens the way to community justice, which certain Liberal Democrat Members have in the past professed to welcome.
	Clause 12 is a sensible and considered addition to the conditional cautions scheme. It was widely debated in Committee, and it provides the opportunity to deal fairly with offenders who are willing to admit their guilt and are ready to make amends for their behaviour. However, amendment No. 32 would do away with the clause, so we would welcome its withdrawal.
	Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 seek to remove the option of imposing a financial penalty as a condition of a caution. In the view of practitioners, financial penalties are a useful option, because they ensure that reparation is made to the community, especially in cases where the community itself is the victim. Amendment No. 34 sits quite oddly with amendments Nos. 33 and 35, as it provides that in every case where a conditional caution is given a financial penalty must be included as one of the conditions. Although we believe that there are good reasons to extend the scheme to include financial penalties, we do not think that such a penalty should be compulsory in every case.
	Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 seek to remove the Secretary of State's order-making powers to amend the maximum levels of attendance and financial penalties under the conditional cautioning scheme. Without these powers, it would be necessary to introduce primary legislation if, in the light of the experience of operating the extended conditional caution scheme or with the passage of time, it proved necessary to amend the maximum levels specified in the Bill.
	The purpose of the order-making powers is to ensure that the conditional cautioning scheme will in practice be sufficiently flexible and that it can be updated quickly. For example, attendance at a specified place may require slightly over 20 hours. On financial limits, we propose to provide a fractional link to summary conviction penalties. The power to change the alternative minimum is needed to help us to keep the legislation up to date with any changes in summary conviction levels passed by the House.
	I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green about the appropriate protection of offenders, but I hope that I can give her some comfort. The code of conditional cautioning will provide that the conditions must represent an appropriate and proportionate response to the offence. Furthermore, one of the strongest safeguards will be that a conditional caution can always be refused by an offender. For these reasons, I urge her to withdraw her amendments to clause 12.
	The hon. Lady has also tabled a number of amendments to clause 13. Amendment No. 38 seeks to impose a time limit of 12 hours on the period during which an offender can be held in police detention following a suspected breach of a conditional caution. Clause 13 does not specify a maximum length for the detention period. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) made clear in Committee, the powers of arrest and detention provided for in clause 13 are intended to provide a speedier alternative to a summons for suspected breach of one or more conditions attached to a conditional caution. This power is important because, in some cases, police officers might need to make inquiriesfor example, to verify information given by those arrested about possible excuses for the suspected breach. We do not want offenders spending a disproportionate length of time in custody, and we believe that 12 hours would be excessive in the overwhelming majority of cases.
	In Committee, the arguments against imposing an arbitrary time limit on detention were rehearsed at some length, and I hope that I can give the hon. Lady some reassurance that there is a powerful safeguard in new section 24A(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as inserted by this clause, which provides that the suspect must either be charged with the original offence, or released without charge with or without bail as soon as practicable. Police officers would be acting unlawfully if they acted in an unreasonably slow fashion in the discharge of this requirement. I do not doubt for a moment that the courts would be competent to enforce the requirement if called upon to do so by an aggrieved detainee.
	In practice, the Crown Prosecution Service and police say that the length of detention would be limited, and would, for example, merely involve a phone call to check evidence. Clearly, when the CPS is not available, custody officers routinely bail people. PACE provides a safeguard, under which an offender cannot be detained without charge for more than 24 hours, subject to specified extensions. In addition, a review of offenders held in detention is carried out by an inspector after six hours and then at regular nine-hour intervals until the 24-hour deadline has been reached. As I have said, it is highly unlikely that inquiries will require the offender to be held for anything like that length of time.
	The hon. Lady also tabled amendments Nos. 39 to 41. The intention behind them is to introduce safeguards to protect the offender from misuse of powers. Amendment No. 39 would place a bar on re-arrest for the same suspected breach of a conditional caution. However, that could be problematic if, for example, on an earlier occasion, the offender gave a false explanation that was accepted in good faith by a custody officer who then released the offender. The purpose of the new power of arrestto ensure quick and effective enforcementwould be severely undermined if a further arrest in the light of fresh evidence required an application to the court for a warrant. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
	Amendment No. 40 seeks to ensure that any decision to charge, release on bail or release with no further action should be taken by the CPS prosecutor rather than the police. I should make it absolutely clear that once an offender has been arrested by a police officer, a prosecutor would determine whether the offender had failed to comply with the conditions attached to the caution. It would be the decision of the prosecutor to charge the offender for the original offence. That is beyond question, and is made clear in the existing provisions in the Criminal Justice Act and in the conditional caution code of practice. The amendment is therefore not required to secure that aim.
	Amendment No. 41 makes explicit provision to ensure that a person arrested for suspected breach of a conditional caution may be released on bail pending further investigation into the suspected breach. Again, the amendment is unnecessary, as the power is already available under new section 24A(2)(b) inserted by clause 13. That includes an option for a person to be
	released without charge and on bail to enable a decision to be made as to whether he should be charged with the offence.
	I hope that that will be enough to persuade the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendments to clause 13.
	Finally, in relation to the hon. Lady's s amendments Nos. 28 and 29, the use of a trained constable is a precursor to all activities carried out by a police officer. The amendments refer to an officer who
	has appropriate training and expertise to enable him to make a reasonable and informed assessment of the need for and proportionality of the conditions of bail.
	However, discretion and proportionality apply to everything that a constable does. It would be unique to indicate that a trained officer can only deal specifically with bail conditions. Instead, there is a more general requirement that a constable must be able and competent to deal with the powers and responsibilities attached to the office of constable. As the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, indicated in Committee, guidance accompanying the commencement of those provisions will make clear the need for supervisory management to monitor the use of conditions attached to street bail and to ensure that its application is not subject to any stereotyped images or inappropriate generalisations. Those are important safeguards, which provide scrutiny and monitoring of the actions of a constable, and should serve to highlight any additional training requirements. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendments to schedule 4.

Lynne Featherstone: I want to make it clear that we are not against sanctions such as street bail; we believe that they can be beneficial when used constructively. However, we are concerned about the extension of summary justice without adequate checks and balances. I have listened to the Minister's comments, and as well as apologising for my lateness in attending the debate, I welcome him to his new post.
	The Bill allows further powers. It effectively allows the police and prosecution services, as opposed to judicial oversight, to administer punishment before a guilty charge has been proven. It places no limits on the period for which such conditions can be imposed, for a wide range of reasons, on street bail. There are no restrictions on the category of officer who can impose conditions. There is nothing to stop those powers being used as long-term alternatives to criminal investigation. We discussed that in Committee, and although the proposition is unlikelyand I am sure that it would be noticed if an officer prolonged the periodthe point of law is to have safeguards in place that cannot be abused. Independent judicial oversight plays a vital role in a democratic legal system.
	Cautions are not always issued on low-level crimes. The Magistrates Association says that the offences for which a caution can be administered include actual bodily harm, affray, criminal damage, possession of class A or B drugs, having a bladed article in public, carrying an offensive weapon, burglarynon-commercial and non-residentialand theft. Those do not appear to be minor or low-level offences. If those are dealt with outside the court there is no public knowledgeand the level of offences involved is not as low as the Minister says.
	As for the amendments, our first preference was to leave out clause 12, which would be the effect of amendment No. 32. Clause 12 enables conditions to be imposed on cautions whose object is punishment. At present, conditions can be imposed only for purposes of reparation or rehabilitation. As the Minister suggested, the Liberal Democrats would support the proposal wholeheartedly if it involved reparation or rehabilitation, but I am not sure that that applies to a monetary fine. The clause would allow the police and the criminal prosecution service to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury, removing the courts and judicial oversight. It could also produce a two-tier criminal justice system.

Diana Johnson: My understanding is that a person must accept the caution, and that if they are not happy to do so, the case will go through the judicial system. Is that not correct?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Lady is right to an extent, but a person who was rich and able to pay might well accept a condition that imposed a financial penalty. It would be a way of committing a crime and getting away with it. A two-level system of punishment would be created, in which those who could not afford to accept a conditional caution would have to go through the criminal justice system, while those who could afford it might say, OK, I'll pay. It was worth it.
	Amendment No. 33 retains the current legal position whereby the only conditions that may be applied to cautions are those intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender, and to ensure that the offender makes reparation for the offence. The Bill proposes to allow conditions to be imposed on cautions when the object of the caution is punishment. That is not a small change. In Committee the former Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), acknowledged that the proposal was an innovative and radical departure from the current law. It will affect a great many peoplean estimated 30,000 or so a year, according to the former Minister in Committee. This is not a matter of a few people in connection with virtually nothing; it will affect quite a lot of people, and a whole range of possibilities. The amendments would remove the proposed power to impose a fine as a condition of a caution, which would deal with the two-tier system that I described to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson).
	In amendments Nos. 36 and 37, we seek to restrict the punitive conditions that could be imposed on a caution to those specified in the Bill. We also seek to prevent the Secretary of State from increasing by means of secondary legislation the maximum hours of attendance and the maximum fine that could be imposed. As the magistrates' briefing suggests, the scope of the powers that the Secretary of State would assume under clause 12 opens up the possibility that more serious offences will be involved. I think that everyone assumes that the clause relates to extremely low-level offences, but that may not be so rigorously enforced.
	In Committee the former Minister sought to assure us that the provision would not be used in the context of more serious crime, citing guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions on conditional cautions. I have looked at that guidance, and it does not contain an assurance that punitive conditional cautions will not be used to deal with more serious offences. As the former Minister herself has said, the most realistic safeguards against the use of the procedure to deal with serious offences are the restrictions on the severity of the conditions that may be imposed. That is why we propose that the Bill should prevent secondary legislation from being used to allow the imposition of more serious penalties.
	Amendment No. 38 seeks to place a 12-hour limit on the length of time for which a person arrested on the suspicion that he or she has breached a conditional caution can be held in custody. It would also prevent a person from being rearrested for the same suspected breach of a condition. The Minister said something about a falsehood being presented and an officer listening kindly to it. The Bill gives the police power to arrest someone suspected of breaching a conditional caution, and to detain that person indefinitely until they feel able to decide whether to charge or release him or her.
	Given the restricted purpose of the detention and the Government's confidence that conditional cautions are to be used only for low-level offences, it seems entirely disproportionate for the police to be given an indefinite power of detention in such cases. That distinct disproportionality is highlighted when we consider that in the case of pre-charge detention when a person is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, the suspect can be detained for only up to 24 hours initially, with extensions of up to four days. For police gathering evidence within that time frame, deciding whether to charge the person is surely a harder task than deciding whether a condition of bail has been breached.
	Our concern is that the Government are trying to give the police the power to keep those suspected of breaching a conditional caution in custody for longer than those suspected of committing a criminal offence, which seems disproportionate. However, our amendment No. 38 acknowledges that some flexibility is required. and that it would be unworkable to impose a limit of one or two hours. We consider a 12-hour limit more than adequate, and a reasonable amount of time, given the low-level nature of the crimes that the Government say will fall within the framework of these conditional cautions.
	Our amendments Nos. 40 and 41 clarify the various options specified in proposed new sections 24A to 24C of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, making it clear that they would be available only when a prosecutor had decided that a condition of the caution had been breached without reasonable excuse. A person could therefore be released on bail before it had been determined whether they had breached the condition of their caution. We do not dispute the use of powers listed in proposed new section 24A(2) where such a breach has been established; however, our worry is that that section does not limit the use of the powers in that way, but enables them to be exercised purely by virtue of the fact that a person has been arrested on suspicion of a breach.
	Where a person accepts a conditional caution instead of prosecution, they enter into an agreementa contract, of sortswith the state. So it would be unnatural and unfair for the state then to change the terms of that agreement and to charge them with the original offence, without having established that the condition of the caution had been breached, and the offender had therefore broken their side of the deal. The same argument applies

David Davies: Surely people who are cautioned are jolly lucky that they are not being charged with an offence in the first place. Is not the real unfairness the fact that many people are being let off with a slap on the wrist and a requirement to sign a piece of paper, instead of being charged with offences that they have admitted committing?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but that is a completely different discussion.
	It is clear that it might sometimes be necessary to release someone on bail while the decision is being taken on whether they breached the conditional caution. In fact, that might be a more proportionate measure than detention in custody. It is also clear that if investigations into the suspected breach have not been concluded within 12 hoursthe time limit for detentionit might be necessary to release the person on bail, to ensure their attendance at a police station for further questioning at a later date. The last amendment in the group would retain the power to release on bail in such circumstances.
	We are concerned about the training provided for constables who administer summary justice. If the police are to be able to impose punishments, they need a particular level of training. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 would require constables to have appropriate training before they imposed bail conditions, to ensure that the suspect did not commit an offence on bail, interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. All constables would be able to impose such conditions as they considered necessary to ensure that the suspect surrendered to custody.
	The granting of bail in a police station is the responsibility of the custody sergeant, who is a figure independent of the investigation; it is not the arresting officerthe policeman on the beatwho imposes bail. A custody sergeant has specialist training and expertise in order to perform a semi-judicial role in deciding whether bail conditions are justified. We want such training to be transferred to those who will administer conditions. Clearly, the custody officer will not be present when street bail is given. Instead, the officer responsible for deciding on the conditions to be imposed will be the investigating officer, who is not impartial and would not have the training and experience of a custody officer.
	The proposal that would require constables to make decisions about conditions needed to ensure that a suspect did not offend when on bail is not viable either. A decision involving street bail places on the arresting constable the responsibility of achieving a balance between the aims of the conditions of bail and the rights of the suspect. The constable would also have to make judgments about the suspect's likely future behaviour. That is a very grey area. We believe that constables should have the requisite training and expertise before they can impose conditions on street bail for purposes broader than ensuring attendance at a police station.
	In Committee, the previous Minister accepted those arguments and said:
	Of course, we will expect officers exercising such powers to be properly trained. We expect that with any powers that the police are given. They have extensive training, and we will expect them to be properly trained in those powers.[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 March 2006; c. 134-5.]
	In the light of that statement, we can see no reason why the Government should reject the proposal to include the requirements in the amendments in the Bill. We could then write the expectations of the previous Minister in Committee, and our proposals today, into the legislation.

Nick Herbert: I wish to lend my party's support to some of the concerns that underlie the amendments, if not the amendments specifically. We believe that limits on conditional cautions should be taken seriously. The Government favour what appears to be a considerable extension of summary power, and just before the local elections they slipped into the pressit was obviously intended to be a much bigger story, but was drowned by the events that engulfed the Government at the timea further extension of the ability of police officers to issue on-the-spot fines for a range of offences. We look forward to hearing more about those proposals when they are properly announced to the House, and not by way of newspaper articles just before local elections.
	The common denominator in the extension of summary power is that the courts are being taken out of the equation. Fixed penalties and conditional cautions are both alternatives to prosecution and have generally related to minor matters. My party supported the introduction of conditional cautions when they were introduced, but if punishment is involved it should, in principle, be a matter for some form of court involvement. The punishment becomes a form of sentence and the Magistrates Association has expressed great concern about the fact that it is being entirely removed from oversight of the operation of conditional cautions, which will be a matter for prosecutors.
	When Lord Justice Auld, in his 2001 review of criminal courts, supported the introduction of a more general, formalised and conditional cautioning system, he also said:
	Any such scheme should, save for the most minor offences, be the responsibility of the CPS and subject to the approval of the court. Without the protection of the court's approval, its use could be used or perceived as a 'cop-out' by the prosecution to avoid prosecuting cases that should be prosecuted, or of innocent criminals being at risk of pressure to accept onerous compromises to avoid prosecution, or of the rich being able to buy their way out of prosecution when the poor could not.
	The Magistrates Association points out that judges and magistrates take an oath, receive training, operate in public and have to announce the reasons for a sentence in open courtincluding any departure from sentencing guidelinesbut the same does not apply to prosecutors. Where will the public accountability be for the operation of the conditional cautions?
	This direction of policy is described as the extension of summary power, but magistrates courts are summary courts. That is where summary justice should be administered. The proper response to the Prime Minister's concern that the operation of justice has not been fast enough, which we share, would be to look at the operation of the court system and the Crown Prosecution Service. The recent NAO report pointed out that between 150,000 and 180,000 ineffective hearings every year were caused by the prosecution, the police and the CPS.
	We will not oppose the extension proposals in the Bill, although we have reservations about the sort of offences that will be involved. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said, some of them will be quite serious, and we will watch this policy development with some concern. We need reassurance about the proposals flagged up in the media for a further extension of summary justice. We need to know the extent to which magistrates courts are being closed out of the sentencing process simply for the sake of more rapid justice.

James Brokenshire: This issue was discussed in some detail in Committee, so I shall be brief. However, I shall begin by welcoming the three new Ministers to their Front-Bench responsibilities. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), used to be a Whip, so I am pleased that her promotion allows her to speak on Home Office matters.
	The direction of policy in respect of summary justice has brought conditional cautions into closer focus. The obvious change that the Bill introduces is that the conditions attached to cautions are intended to punish the offender. That is the aspect of the Bill that has caused most disquiet when it comes to the intended operation of the cautions, and the comments of John Thornhill, the chairman of the Magistrates Association's judicial policy and practice committee, are interesting in that regard. He said:
	We consider it contrary to the principles of justice for prosecutors and police to be able to impose punishment without the involvement of the judiciary. A democratic legal system ensures that an independent tribunalthe judiciaryshould sentence and impose punishment, thus preventing bias from prosecutorial authorities.
	Is it right for the police or prosecutorial authorities to extend their jurisdiction much further? If so, how far do we go? That is the substance of the debate on these amendments. However, if conditions that in essence are sentences or punishments are to be imposed, is a person from the police or the CPS the right person to impose them? Two possibilities arise. First, a person might accept a caution with conditions less stringent than would be the case if the matter were referred to the magistrates court or some other judicial body. Secondly, and alternatively, a person might be advised or required to accept a caution without realising that the conditions are more draconian than those that a court would impose.
	Other amendments in the group apply to police bail, to which a similar quasi-judicial approach should be adopted. The Magistrates Association believes that bail conditions must be examined very carefully, and that as much information as possible be obtained when the conditions are set. Sufficient training must be given to officers, and the proper safeguards put in place, to ensure that the conditions that are attached are appropriate. In that way, the people on the street who use street bail can do so in a way that is both effective and fitting.

David Burrowes: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a wider concern? As the Carter review recommends restricting the involvement of solicitors to a fixed-fee basis, solicitors could be reluctant to give the quality of advice about police bail and conditional cautions that the interests of justice demand. There is concern that justice will not be done if we move from a system of summary justice with effective representation to a system of police representation with a squeeze on solicitors' budgets.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend speaks from his practical experience as a criminal solicitor before he entered the House and he makes an important point. If the use of conditional cautions is increased while legal advice on whether to accept them is restricted, it is a cause for concern, so I hope that the Minister will take that on board and monitor the issue to ensure that unfairness does not result, and that the playing field is not skewed. Sentencing and punishment and the conditions for street bail and cautions must be applied appropriately, proportionately and effectively. The prosecuting authorities must not become judge, jury and executioner or even judge, jury and punisher.
	There are valid concerns about the general policy approach. We must ensure that the process is robust and that the whole procedure is used appropriately.

Liam Byrne: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make one or two concluding remarks.
	Many years ago I read my MaitlandThe Constitutional History of Englandand I can still remember that flexibility has characterised the English system of law for the past 1,000 years. I am not a lawyer, however, so I hope that my historical reading is right, because that debate is at the heart of the issue we have been discussing.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) expressed concern about two-tier justice. Too many of our communities already experience two-tier justice when offenders go unpunished and cause havoc in their communities. That is exactly why the extension that we propose in conditional cautioning and street bail is so important. It is also important to note that it is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to decide whether to issue a caution or press the matter to court. We often hear from both sides of the House that we should put great trust in the judgment of front-line professionals, and that is a useful reminder in this case.
	I can advise the hon. Lady that the conditions attached to cautions must, according to the code on conditional cautioning, be appropriate and proportionate. Secondly, it is certainly not the case that unlimited detention is envisaged for breach of the conditions. Under the relevant guidance, custody officers must release individuals, or release them on bail, as soon as practicable. There is additional back-up in the protection offered by PACEthe Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. On the hon. Lady's final point about appropriate training, it is a prerequisite that a constable is fit to execute his or her responsibilities.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) expressed concern about the attaching of punitive conditions. That is an important issue. One of the great virtues of being a by-election winner is that I can share experience of my community with the many Members on both sides of the House who visited it in 2004. For many people in the area that I was elected to serve, the possibility offered by indirect reparation is extremely significant as we go about rebuilding a community of which we are proud.
	I commend the Government proposals to the House and urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Protection of children: prohibition of police and conditional cautions

'(1) Police cautions, including conditional cautions under Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), shall not be issued in relation to offences against a child under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) and Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42), save in the circumstances provided for in subsection (2).
	(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person issuing the caution believes that the person in receipt of the caution is not likely to commit further offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	(3) In this section, child means a person under 16 years old.'.  [Bob Spink.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Spink: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2 Encrypted data and indecent photographs of a child
	'(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 53 (failure to comply with a notice)
	(a) after subsection (5A)(a) there is inserted
	(aa) in a case to which subsection (6) applies, seven years;
	(b) after subsection (5B) there is inserted
	(6) This subsection applies where
	(a) a person has been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33); or
	(b) the apparatus or data storage device containing the protected information contains an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
	(c) the apparatus or data storage device containing the protected information has come into the possession of any person together with other apparatus or a data storage device which contains an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or
	(d) the court is satisfied that the protected information is likely to contain an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.
	(7) Subsection (b) will not apply where the person to whom the notice is given can show that the protected information does not contain an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.
	(8) In this section 'indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child' shall have the same meaning as that set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37).
	(3) After paragraph 36 of Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there is inserted
	36A An offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) if subsection (6) of that section applies.'.
	New clause 3 Extension of offences requiring notification
	'After paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there shall be inserted
	29A An offence under sections 48 to 50 of this Act (abuse of children through prostitution and pornography) where the offender
	(a) was 18 or over, or
	(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offences for a term of at least 12 months.'.
	New clause 9 Police powers of entry and examination of relevant offender's home address
	After section 88 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there is inserted
	88A Police powers of entry and examination of relevant offender's home address for confirmation of residency and risk assessment
	(1) Upon application by a constable of a relevant force a justice of the peace may grant a warrant authorising him to enter premises named on the warrant if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied and that it is necessary for a warrant to be issued.
	(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are
	(a) that it is necessary to enter the premises named on the warrant to confirm the residency and risk assessment of the relevant person;
	(b) that it would assist the carrying out of the purpose of confirmation of residency and risk assessment, for a constable of the relevant force to examine and search the premises and the things in them; and
	(c) that on more than one occasion a constable of the relevant force has attempted to examine and search the premises and the things in them for the purpose of ascertaining residency and risk assessing the offender and has been unable (whether by not being able to search and examine the premises and the things in them, or by not being able to obtain entry to the premises) to do so.
	(3) Section 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) applies to warrants issued under subsections (1) above as though it were a search warrant issued under that Act.
	(4) The power to issue a warrant conferred by this section is in addition to any such power otherwise conferred.
	(5) This section does not prejudice any other power of entry, examination, search or seizure.
	(6) In this section
	'premises' means an address whose address has been notified by a relevant offender under sections 83 to 85 of this Act.'the relevant force' means the police force maintained for the area in which the premises are situated. '.
	New clause 10 Duty on sexual or violent offender to co-operate
	After section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) insert
	67A Duty on offender to co-operate
	(1) A relevant sexual or violent offender shall co-operate with any reasonable steps requested of him by the responsible authority.
	(2) 'Reasonable steps' shall:
	(a) include, but not be restricted to, providing access to his home address during a reasonable time of day to facilitate a risk assessment by the responsible authority; and
	(b) be restricted to steps necessary for them to discharge their responsibility under section 67 of this Act to assess the risk posed by the offender.
	(3) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a reasonable step requested by him under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
	(4) In this section
	'relevant sexual or violent offender' has the meaning given by section 68;'responsible authority' shall have the meaning given by section 67;'home address' shall have the meaning given by section 83(7) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42). '.
	Amendment No. 42, in title, line 8, after 'children', insert
	'and offences relating to child pornography.'.

Bob Spink: According to answers to my parliamentary questions, the police cautioned 807 people in the past two years alone, mostly for taking indecent photographs of children. Given the nature of paedophiles and their tendency to reoffend, it is a fair assumption that some and probably many of those 807 people went on to commit further offences, which may or may not have been detected. Those offences clearly damage our innocent young children. The use of cautions in those circumstances, rather than the public trial that such people deserve, helps them to reoffend and therefore damages our children.
	All hon. Members know that those offences destroy children and families. I put it to the House that, if only one of those 807 people went on to reoffendthe House must remember that they have admitted their offence and that they are guilty of an offence against innocent childrenthe use of the caution was wrong in all cases and should not have been used. Cautions should be used generally only where, first, the offence, which must be admitted in full by the criminal, has only minor consequences for either individual victims or society at large and, secondly, where offenders are unlikely to reoffend, where the caution will do the job of pulling them up, showing them that what they did was wrong and preventing them from going on to reoffend. Clearly, neither of those two tests is usually met in the case of paedophile activity.
	Instead of leaving the decision about whether to caution to a police officer, who may or may not be an expert in dealing with serious child abuse, Parliamentwhich should protect our children, not the abusersshould prevent the use of cautions for paedophile activity in all but truly exceptional cases. New clause 1(2) sets out the exceptional case, where the officer believes that the offender is unlikely to commit further offences, but that exception would not normally apply. Once paedophiles are apprehended, they should be put through the courtsthe right place for such serious offences, thus ensuring that the public are aware of their proclivities and giving parents in the locality a better chance of defending their innocent children by keeping an eye on the offenders.
	When the subject was debated before in the House, the argument was advanced that it is sometimes easier to secure a confession and therefore to impose a caution than to secure a conviction. It was argued that it is therefore sometimes possible to pin down someone as an offender by offering a caution, when they might escape conviction if the matter was taken before the courts. That is a serious argument against taking people who abuse children before the courts, and I should like to address it very briefly now.
	The offence and its consequences are so serious that I believe that, on balance, a trial in court is the right way forward in almost all cases. The use of summary powers that the Bill generally seeks to extend is not appropriate for such particularly obnoxious offences. I strongly suspect anyway that an offence is only admitted and a caution only accepted by paedophiles when they know that the evidence against them is so compelling that they would be found guilty, since the cautioned criminal will be entered in any event on to the sex offenders register and no reasonable person would accept that lightly without the very high probability or almost certainty of being found guilty at trial.
	I am sure the House will be surprised that the use of cautions for such offences has increased almost tenfold over the past few years. I want that trend to be reversed. I want paedophiles to get the justice that they deserve and our children to get the protection that they deserve. I hope that hon. Members will support my new clause, which would let the police, the courts and the public know that the House takes the matter very seriously and is intent on giving maximum protection to our innocent children.

Paul Beresford: I shall speak to new clauses 2, 3, 9 and 10 and amendment No. 42, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself. I welcome the Minister to his new post. We are not discussing teeth, and I am sure that he and I are both pleased about that, but the subject that we are discussing is very grim, and it is a bit hard for him to be covering it on his first day at the Dispatch Box.
	The new clauses strengthen the law against sex offenders, especially against those who offend against children. As the Minister will know from his background research, I have spent some time with the Metropolitan police paedophile unit and the issue has developed into something of a minor campaign for me. There has been enormous co-operation between various Home Office Ministers, civil servants, Conservative Front Benchers and me. Perhaps the best example is the Committee stage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which saw some very close discussion and changes. It was an unusual Committee stage because of the co-operation. In effect, the new clauses derive from those discussions.
	At that stage, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), asked that the ideas that I am putting forward today be stored for further consideration. Over recent weeks, my small team of Alisdair Gillespie, who is an academic barrister and a specialist in this area, Detective Chief Inspector Matt Sarti and Iwe are all on the unit that is working on this area in the Home Office, although I must admit that their attendance is considerably better than minehad a number of meetings with the Minister's predecessor to discuss the way forward on the new clauses.
	Amendment No. 42 simply broadens the long title to enable the new clauses to be covered. The meat of the clauses starts with new clause 2 on encryption. It is well known that paedophiles collect child abuse pornographic photographic images, some of which are real and some of which are pseudo. There has been a huge increase in such activity with the arrival of the internet, and the activity is expanding massively at the moment. Paedophiles use the images to stimulate themselves and others. The images are sold between individuals, frequently not for financial gain, but for new abuse images. One must remember that every single abuse photograph represents at least one child being abused on one occasion. The thought of new images being constantly produced to fulfil that demand is quite horrific.
	Many of the images are in the form of videos or DVDs or are on computers. Increasingly, they are kept on remote storage. Some of the computers that the police collect have no hard drives at all. They are driven or initiated by a disk and the information is stored remotely. Increasingly, the information is hidden by encryption. We used to have simple encryption, but we have moved to 128 bit and, even more, to 256 bit encryption. The software is freely available on the internet and relatively easy to use. Essentially, it is unbreakable.
	The other thing that particularly alarms me is that Vista, which is the replacement for Windows OS, is due out generally next year. Once that system is on board the security is such that, when the computer is turned off, it automatically encrypts all the information on it so that when the police collect the computer and turn it on, they cannot break through the encryption. Some information can be destroyed, preventing access by the police. The police clearly need access for obvious reasons. They need to seek evidence against individuals and, frequentlybecause offenders sometimes work in packs or groupsagainst others. In a way, perhaps it is even more important that the police can identify the children in the photographs and movies. Once those children have been located, it is possible to seek care and counselling for them to try to bring them back into a normal life. There is some evidence that abused children go on to become abusers themselves.
	The new clause deals with encrypted data found on computers and storage in cases where the police believe that the encrypted data contain abusive images of children. It does not create any new offence or scheme, but rather amends the sentencing regime under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which is commonly known as RIPA. Part III requires a person to comply with a notice issued by the police to hand over the encryption key for protected data. The penalty for a breach is two years, but that is ludicrous for a paedophile because the alternative penalty, if the information was turned over, would often be five years or more and, frequently, having to go on the sex offenders list. Accordingly, it is unlikely that an offender who has indecent and abusive photographs of children on his computer would comply with the notice. To achieve compliance, we need to step up the penalty, so I suggest that such offenders should be liable for up to 10 years' imprisonment, which is the penalty for contravening section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978there is thinking and a link behind the idea.
	The new clause would simply raise the sentence if a court was satisfied that it was more than likely that the majority of the encrypted data consisted of indecent photographs of children. I suggest that the civil burden is permissible because the offence would be not possessing the photographs of children, which would be punished separately, but the failure to hand over the key. The higher sentence would apply only when one of two thresholds was passed: first, that the computer had non-encrypted indecent photos of children or a child on it, as an indication; or, secondly, that the person had been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
	I will move on to new clause 3. Sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which make provision for the offences of recruiting or controlling a child involved in pornography or prostitution, are not, for some reason, prescribed for the purposes of notification requirements under part 2 of the Act. I am afraid that my Front-Bench colleagues and I missed that when the legislation was passed. Those sections are not being used by the police and prosecutors because they do not have the notification that applies to most of, if not all, the other provisions relating to the abuse of children. I hope that the Minister will agree that there is no valid reason why people convicted of such an offence should not be required to notify the police of their details, because they are directly involved in the abuse and exploitation of children and need monitoring and risk assessment.
	New clauses 9 and 10 are two different approaches to the same problem: the risk assessment of offenders on the sex offenders list. It is coincidental that we are debating the matter today because it relates to two recent high-profile cases: today there was a report on the rapist and murderer of Naomi Bryant, and, three or so weeks ago, a paedophile was reported as having persistently raped a nine-year-old girl over a period of three years. Both people were on the sex offenders list, and it is possible that a change along the lines that I am suggesting could have helped in those cases.
	The police in this country are required to risk-assess offenders. The House will be aware that paedophiles are especially prone to reoffend. If I may quote a well-known barrister steeped in the practice of defending paedophilesI cannot think of a more obnoxious taskthey are the most devious, lying individuals she has ever had to deal with.
	Most western countries have sex offenders lists and virtually all require risk assessment. Most give the police the opportunity to do that, but, unfortunately, those undertaking such risk assessments in this country have limited rights of access. Here, to date, most offenders co-operate, but I am fairly sure that that is mainly because they are ignorant of the fact that they can shut the door in the face of the police or their agents who come to check a residency for the purposes of a risk assessment.
	Unfortunately, it is increasingly becoming apparent that more and more such individuals are realising that there is a flaw in the legislation. Many give false or temporary addresses. They move to caravans or move around in caravans. I know of a group of them who live in canal boats in London. Some live with relatives, or give relatives' addresses. It is quite hideously worrying for the police that one individual, whom I will not name, owns a block of flats, and, as far as he is concerned, the front door of the block of flats is his front door. The police thus cannot get into the block, although they are aware that single-parent mothers and their children live in flats in that blockone's imagination can run with that.
	We discussed all these matters with the Minister's predecessor. I felt that there was general agreement between my team and the Minister that change was needed, but it was the approach that we were discussing. New clause 9 follows the approach that I believe the Minister and his advisers wish to follow. I understand that it is the approach that has been taken in Scotland. Ministers prefer that both countries should have comparable legislation, unless we can arrive at better legislation. In spite of my Scottish ancestry, it might be appropriate that we have better legislation here in England and that the Scots copy us rather than the other way round.
	New clause 9 enables the police to obtain a warrant to ensure confirmation and risk assessment. I personally feel that new clause 10 is a better approach. It is a lateral-thinking approach in that it requires the offender to co-operate, both within a reasonable excess request and to co-operate with any reasonable risk assessment requests. The clause goes further than new clause 9 but is gentler. New clause 9 requires admission and new clause 10 co-operation. I think that we will find that most of our beleagured police forces would prefer new clause 10 because it goes that step further.
	I suspect that some people may believe that the human rights of the offenders that we are discussing are being breached. I point to the word reasonable, which appears in both of the new clauses. Secondly, it would be rather nice if we considered the human rights of the children who could be abused. Child sex offenders frequently go on to abuse. They abuse the human rights of individuals. Some offenders may rape, something which I have mentioned already. There is sometimes murder, as has been reported in today's media.
	I hope that the Minister will see that there is an opportunity to act now. It is an opportunity to move: before even Microsoft is ready for us, we are ready for it. Delay would leave a breathing space for some horrible offenders who have a record of often horrendous abuse towards innocent members of our society, especially children. There is a figure that the police gave me some years ago; they conservatively estimate that there are 230,000 active paedophiles, many of whom are women, in this country. That is a sufficient number for one in every street.

David Davies: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). I understand that conditional cautions were being handed out as a means of discouraging people who might have committed one offence from committing further offences. It was a form of warning. As my hon. Friend said, it was a way of pulling people up short. It is clear that the system is being flagrantly abused. It seems to have been transmogrified into a means of keeping people out of the courts and ultimately out of prison, which I believe is a means of saving money. I find that unacceptable.
	Labour Members will know that only one crime in 20 is solved. I believe that that includes the 30,000 or so people who are issued with cautions every year. That means that anyone who commits a crime can be assumed to have committed at least 20 offences before being caught. We have been discussing paedophiles disseminating child pornography, and it is reasonable to assume that they will have committed many more than 20 offences when they are finally caught.
	It is ludicrous that we caution people who have committed such serious offences. We issue cautions for offences such as burglary or grievous bodily harm. I would much rather scrap the system of cautions when people have committed serious crime and bring them to court, punish them and give their victims justice. If we must continue with the ludicrous system of cautions, which is abused, the very least that we can do is try to ensure that those who have committed the most serious offences are not able to escape justice by accepting caution. There are not many offences that are more serious than disseminating child pornography and abusing children for some perverted and twisted personal enjoyment. It is only appropriate that we remove the right of criminals to be able to accept a caution for something as serious as the offences that they have committed.

Joan Walley: In welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, I should like to draw his attention to a loophole in the existing legislation. Individuals on the sex offenders register can be elected as local councillors. They are not covered by guidance from the standards commission, as they were included on the sex offenders register before it was introduced. If we expect local councillors to have close links with local schools and vulnerable people there ought to be a means whereby their inclusion on the register is considered in risk assessment by local authorities and the police.
	In the past 12 months and over a longer period, I have gone round the houses raising the issue with the Standards Board for England, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. I raised it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), who was then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, during the passage of earlier legislation in the House, and I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter in January. I asked the Home Office
	whether the proposals to develop a new vetting and barring scheme will include provisions to bar those on the sex offenders register from holding office...as a local councillor and...on a police authority.[ Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 1630W.]
	I was told that that was a matter for the Education Secretary and that responsibilities for vetting procedures for the police lie with the Home Office and those for local councillors with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Having gone round the houses, there is still a flaw or loophole in the legislation. My constituents are very concerned indeed that a local councillor in a position of authority may have to deal with residents' worries about people on the sex offenders register, so I urge the Minister to consider whether that loophole should be allowed to exist.

Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
	In tabling new clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has done the House a considerable service, as he has raised an extremely important issue that causes people anxiety. The granting of cautions for serious offences is bound to cause public disquiet. The circumstances surrounding recent cases tend to relate to serious allegations of sexual misconduct against children or others which, however, are very oldsometimes those allegations were made 20 to 25 years previously. The Crown Prosecution Service may have considerable anxieties about whether a conviction can be secured, whether the evidence can be put together, and whether a trial will be a difficult undertaking in the circumstances. I entirely accept that one must bear that in mind, so I have some sympathy with the problems faced by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Paul Beresford: The paedophile police, if I may use  Daily Mail terminology, say that if they get offenders or potential offenders early, they use the caution as a means of forcing them to get treatment, which does not necessarily land on the taxpayer.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The cases that I was citing are cases in which, I fear, the person concerned has gone on to commit a multiplicity of offences, but there is no evidence that he has been committing offences for some time. In some cases the alleged offender is very old.
	Difficult issues are involved. I have anxieties about the principle of cautions being used in serious offences. It cuts both ways. If the offence is very serious, people may end up accepting cautions when they ought to be pleading not guilty to the offence. That is a form of plea bargaining, and we knowwe will come to it in the next group of amendmentsthat there may be a massive disparity between the sentence that a person may attract if they are convicted in court, and the relatively lenient sentence that may be visited on them if they accept their guilt previously.

Bob Spink: I am following my hon. Friend's arguments carefully, and he is making a lot of sense, but given that accepting a caution means that the offender will go on the sex offenders register for offences against children, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is highly unlikelyindeed, unthinkablethat anyone would accept a caution and not go to court, if they were innocent?

Dominic Grieve: I hesitate to be so certain in my own mind. We know enough about the criminal justice system to know that it is human and fallible. Sometimes accusations are made against individuals that are subsequently shown at trial not just to be unproven, but to be wholly wrong. There are circumstances about which I have anxieties. Those go beyond cautioning to extensive plea bargaining, with huge disparities between the sentence that will be attracted on conviction and that which will be visited on a guilty plea. One can end up with a situationI see the Minister noddingwhere there are excessive inducements to individuals to try to bring the matter to a premature conclusion.
	These are difficult matters, and those of us who have practised in the courts know the difficulties that we sometimes have in getting our clients to sign the back sheets of our briefs to indicate that they have been fully advised about cases before they accept any form of formal or informal plea bargaining. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says in response. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is that this is a matter that should properly concern Parliament.
	I shall not repeat the arguments ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). Over a number of years he has been assiduous in trying to deal with the problem of paedophile sex offenders. We have had a number of opportunities, which we have sometimes missed, to try to firm up the framework of the legislation that we need to deal with them. As my hon. Friend rightly said, they are sometimes offenders whose high intelligence means that they have a unique capacity to wriggle off the hook, coupled with their unique capacity for self-denial about their behaviour.
	On the issues of child pornography that are at the centre of new clause 2, we know from all the research that has been carried out that there is an absolute causal link between the use of child pornography and the commission of substantive offences. That is becoming so abundantly clear that it raises some extremely difficult questions about, for instance, pseudo-photographs and even cartoons, and the extent to which we are over-tolerant of those and reluctant to prosecute those who may possess them. That is one of the serious matters that the House must go on to consider in future.
	What my hon. Friend proposes strikes me as eminently reasonable, and we support him. We take the view that penalties must be sufficient to act as a clear incentive to provide the keys to the encrypted data. If, in fact, people can escape with a rap over the knuckles by not providing the data and thereby save themselves from a substantial term of imprisonment, it is clear that many will avail themselves of that opportunity and that such cases will become more frequent when encryption becomes more readily available.
	So far as notification and powers of entry and examination are concerned, I have no difficulties in terms of human rights in saying that those who have been convicted of such offences can properly be placed under a regime on releasewe know that we must do this for public protectionwhich may curtail some of the rights that others may enjoy. Entry into a person's property to check whether there are clear signs that, notwithstanding whatever treatment that person may have received when they were in custody, the problems, which are of an wholly obsessional nature, are present and that that person is liable to commit further offences or is committing further offences such as downloading pornography or having pornographic material in their home seems to strike a reasonable balance. Whether the Government adopt new clause 10 or new clause 9, I hope that they respond positively, because we have raised the matter previously and the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley is valuable.
	I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. The matter has no party political aspect, and I hope that the Government will provide some reassurance that they will take this opportunity. On a number of occasions, we have missed such opportunities, and those of us who want to see something done look at each criminal justice Bill to see whether we can hang something on it. There is an opportunity, and when the Bill finally goes through, I hope that we receive reassurance that some of the loopholes have been covered.

Liam Byrne: I begin by associating myself wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and the hon. Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). The hon. Member for Mole Valley welcomed the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) when he was responsible for these matters, which I intend to continue in future. The motivation behind all the new clauses is shared on both sides of the House.
	I will assist my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North in obtaining an answer to her questions. I led for the Department of Health on the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, so I am familiar with some of the issues that she has highlighted.
	New clause 1 seeks to ensure that an offender who is involved in making and distributing indecent photographs of children or who commits a sexual offencefor example, rape, sexual assault or sexual groomingis not given a caution, with or without conditions, unless it is clear that that person is unlikely to commit further offences of that nature again. Conditional cautioning may not be considered for any of those offences, bar one, because they are all either-way or indictable-only offences and are therefore not included in the list of offences in the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on conditional cautioning issued in December 2004.
	Decisions about cautions cannot be taken by the police alone. The DPP's guidance on charging issued in January 2005 makes it clear that police must refer all indictable-only offences to a prosecutor, which is a point that the hon. Member for Castle Point made forcefully. It is important that police officers have recourse to the specialisms that prosecutors can bring, and police cannot administer a simple caution in those cases at their own discretion.
	The decision on the right course of action is framed by the simple guidance set out in the code for Crown prosecutorsthe more serious the offence, the more likely it is that prosecution will be needed in the public interest. Indeed, one of the specific factors in favour of prosecution is listed in the code at paragraph 5.9:
	there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct.
	A review of cases in this area has shown that there are truly exceptional circumstances, as the hon. Member for Castle Point acknowledged, in which prosecutors should be allowed to consider caution. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) alluded to that sentiment and provided some examples. One further example could involve an allegation of rape by one child against another, where a final warning is accompanied by packages of treatment in a programme of interventions designed by youth offending teams or social services to address the offender's inappropriate sexual behaviour. In such truly exceptional circumstances, the offence may be suitable for disposal by a caution, but only providing that all the criteria are met.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point referred to some of the consequences of a caution. It is true that, in the absence of a charge, a caution is better than dealing with the case by no further action, or better than detecting but not proceeding. A caution has the benefit of ensuring that the offence at least appears on the person's criminal record and can be cited in future proceedings. It is also significant that the offender will become subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for two years from the date of the caution or for one year in the case of a youth offender.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point is right to say that it is important to exercise great care in taking the decision whether to caution those who admit offences of this nature, and that a trial is right in almost all such cases. The risk of re-offending is, of course, one of the key factors to take into account in the decision-making process. The existing guidance on cautioning and charging, and the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, provide the necessary safeguards.
	For those reasons, we believe that it is desirable that the opportunity to use a simple caution for offences of this nature should continue to exist for extraordinary cases, but with reference to the important principle: the more serious the crime, the more important it is to prosecute. I think that the House is united in its view about the gravity of these offences.

Bob Spink: I welcome the Minister to his new position, which I forgot to mention earlier. I welcome his approach to the problem, but does he share my concern at the fact that, over the last two years alone, 807 cautions have been given, mostly for the taking of indecent photographs of children? Does not that massive increase give rise to serious concern?

Liam Byrne: I share that concern and I was keen to understand the issue when it was raised in my briefing from officials at the Home Office. The assurance that I have been given is that the new codes, particularly the one for the Crown prosecutors, will confront those issues head on.
	I would like to deal now with new clause 2, the ambitions of which are welcome. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley explained, the new clause is designed to increase the maximum penalty for an offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000failing to comply with a requirement to disclose protected information or the key to it. The increase in the maximum penalty would apply in the circumstances set out in new subsection (6) of section 53 of RlPA, including where the offender has a previous conviction for possession of indecent images of a child.
	The use of encryption is, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley pointed out, proliferating. Encryption products are more widely available and are integrated as security features in standard operating systems, so the Government have concluded that it is now right to implement the provisions of part 3 of RIPA, including section 53, which is not in force.
	The threat to public safety posed by terrorist use of encryption technology was recognised in section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which increased the maximum penalty for the section 53 offence to five years in a national security case. The Government will therefore publish for consultation a draft statutory code of practice for the investigation of protected electronic data and the exercise of powers in part 3 of RIPA.
	We have previously given an undertaking to bring forward proposals in line with new clause 2 in the context of consulting on the implementation of part 3, and we shall shortly begin those consultations. We remain very sympathetic to what the new clause is designed to do, but we want to allow an opportunity for public consideration and comment on the proposals first, before implementing any legislative changes.
	On new clause 3, schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the offences for which a conviction, finding or caution will, subject to certain sentencing thresholds being met, result in the offender being made subject to the notification requirements of part 2 of the 2003 Actmore commonly known as the sex offenders register. When schedule 3 was drawn up, we decided not to include the offences under sections 48 to 50 of the 2003 Act because we were of the view that such offences could be motivated by factors such as greed. We did, however, include the offences in schedule 5 to the 2003 Act. Inclusion in schedule 5 means that if there is a demonstrable risk of serious sexual harm from the offenders, courts can make a sexual offences prevention order either when dealing with such an offender or on subsequent application from the police. That order has the effect of placing the offender on to the sex offenders register as well as making him subject to the prohibitions imposed by the order itself.
	I am, however, extremely sympathetic to the view of the hon. Member for Mole Valley that, while offences in sections 48 to 50 are not strictly sexual offences, those who perpetrate them demonstrate, at the very least, a callous disregard of the sexual well-being of children, pose a threat, and may require the monitoring that registration brings. My officials will therefore review the content of schedules 3 and 5 over the summer. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his proposals will be central to that review. Changes to schedules 3 and 5 do not require primary legislation and can be made by order subject to affirmative resolution. Instead of making piecemeal changes today, we should await the results of the review and look to make all necessary changes through an order to be laid in the autumn. This morning, after we spoke, I explored precisely what order-making powers are available under section 130 of the 2003 Act.
	New clause 9 introduces a new power for the police to enter and search the home address of offenders who are subject to the notification requirements of part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On that point, I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley for the work that he has undertaken. In 2005, he dedicated his private Member's Bill to this issue, and I very much appreciate the thought that he has given to it. In March, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East said that although we had previously rejected measures similar to those contained in the new clause, we must keep our position open and under review.
	In recent months, several developments have caused the Government to review that position. Professor Irving's report for the Scottish Executive looked carefully at the way in which offenders are managed in the community to minimise the risk that they pose. Professor Irving concluded that a power of entry for the police was necessary. Officials at the Home Office conducted a review of the effectiveness of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, taking into account the views of law enforcement professionals, prosecutors and the courts, and reached a similar conclusion. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley is aware, officials have been working on drafting an appropriate clause, and we are seeking an appropriate legislative vehicle to make the change. I assure him that we are giving these issues very serious consideration, and we hope to be in a position to put something before Parliament in the near future. Government conventions prevent me from going any further at this stage, but I know that he will be aware of programmes in another place.
	Finally, I want to say a few words about new clause 10. Hon. Members will be aware that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides the statutory framework for inter-agency co-operation in assessing and managing violent offenders and sex offenders under arrangements known as multi-agency public protection arrangements. I should like to offer the House officials' first view of the new clauses drafted by the hon. Member for Mole Valley, which may need further reflection. Under the arrangements, the police and probation services and the Prison Service, supported by additional agencies, work together to manage the risk posed by dangerous offenders to the public. The critical few offenders who pose the highest risk are referred to a multi-agency public protection panelMAPPPwhere their cases are regularly scrutinised by senior representatives of local agencies.
	As I understand it, new clause 10 tries to introduce a requirement on all such offenders to co-operate with any reasonable steps imposed on them by any responsible authority. That would include the probation and police services and the Prison Service. Failure to do that would be a criminal offence. However, we believe that the new clause may need further reflection because, in a great many cases, MAPPA offenders will be subject to the sex offenders register, a community penalty and/or release from imprisonment on licence. That means that there will already be clear requirements on the offenders, with repercussions if they fail to comply. We would therefore like the opportunity to give the matter further consideration.
	In the light of those comments, I hope that my assurances will provide sufficient comfort for hon. Members to agree to withdraw the motion but to work with us on implementing their ambitions.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Minister for considering the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8
	  
	Designation of Part 2 Territories: Omission of United States of America

'(1) The Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/3334 is amended as follows.
	(2) In the list of territories in paragraph 3(2) The United States of America is omitted.'.  [Mr. Grieve.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 114, in page 125, line 3 [Schedule 14], at end insert
	' (j) forum.'.
	No. 115, in page 125, line 5 [Schedule 14], leave out '19A' and insert '19B'.
	No. 116, in page 125, line 23 [Schedule 14], at end insert
	'19B Forum
	(1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears, in the light of all the circumstances, that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory.
	(2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice the judge shall take into account whether the competent UK authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested..'.
	Government amendment No. 66.
	No. 117, in page 133, line 8 [Schedule 14], at end insert
	'Bars to extradition
	15A (1) Section 79 (bars to extradition) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1)(d) there is inserted
	(e) forum.
	(3) In subsection (2) 83 is omitted and 83A inserted.
	(4) After section 83 there is inserted
	83A Forum
	(1) If the conduct constituting the offence was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears, in the light of all the circumstances, that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 2 territory.
	(2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice the judge shall take into account whether the competent UK authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested..'.
	No. 118, in page 133, line 8 [Schedule 14], at end insert
	'Case where person has not been convicted
	15B In section 84 (case where person has not been convicted) after subsection (7)(b) there is inserted
	(c) The Secretary of State may not designate under this subsection if to do so would be inconsistent with any obligation set out in an extradition treaty or other extradition arrangements in force between the United Kingdom and a category 2 territory..'.
	Government amendments Nos. 67 to 71, 78 and 79

Dominic Grieve: It is clear from early-day motions, which numerous Members of Parliament of all parties signedthe last one I saw contained 154 signaturesthat the amendments cover a matter of serious concern. The new clause deals with the Extradition Act 2003, especially its operation in relation to the United States of America, but also more generally, and whether it is a fair and reasonable way to proceed.
	If new clause 8 were accepted, it would omit the United States of America from the list of designated territories in category 2 of the 2003 Act. The United States could not therefore continue to enjoy its current privileged status in securing extradition without producing evidence. That is linked to amendment No. 118, which would prevent any redesignation until the ratification of the United Kingdom-United States extradition treaty, which was concluded in 2003, on both sides of the Atlantic. Ratification has taken place here but, as yet, there has been no reciprocity from the United States.
	Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 try to cover a separate but related issue. If they were accepted, they would introduce into European extradition proceedings, under the European extradition warrant, and into extradition to a category 2 territory, the possibility of the court's examining whether the conduct disclosed by a request or constituting the offence was committed partly in the United Kingdom. No order for extradition would be made unless it appeared, in the light of all the circumstances, that it was in the interests of justice for the person to be tried in the territory that sought extradition. Moreover, under subsection (2), in deciding whether the interests of justice required extradition, the judge would be entitled to look at whether the competent United Kingdom authorities had decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender was sought, and for whom the extradition was requested.
	I shall try to be brief, but it is important to understand the background to these matters. Before 1 January 2004 and the implementation of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition to many countries outside Europethe United States in particularwas governed by a treaty entered into in 1972. There was reciprocity under that treaty. If we wished to extradite someone from the United States, it was necessary to show probable cause of an offence having been committed. If the United States wished to extradite someone from the United Kingdom, a prima facie case had to be established. Some play has been made of the fact that it might be easier to show probable cause than to establish a prima facie case. However, both requirements responded to national legal principles and, in reality, very little turns on the distinction.
	There were problems with the 1972 treaty. It was suggested that it took a long time to get extradition from this country, although I believe that that says more about the problems with our court procedure than anything else. In addition, there were further blocks on extradition that presented a real problem. They included the fact that certain offences were not covered at all. For example, a person could not be extradited from the United States for child pornography, which we have just discussed. Indeed, that still applies. The statute of limitations was also frequently invoked in the United States, placing a bar on some offences for which we sought extradition. Speciality claims were made, and some offences became incapable of extradition. There were also problems when someone was in prison in the United States for a minor offence but was wanted in this country for a major one.
	I welcome the fact that a new treaty was negotiated between this country and the United States of America. It went a long way towards solving those problems. However, although we have signed and ratified the treaty, and allowed the United States to operate a procedure for extradition that is akin to that of our European neighbours and requires no evidence whatever to be produced, no reciprocity has been provided by the United States at all.
	The treaty was signed on 31 March 2003. On 16 December, Baroness Scotland gave assurances in another place that ratification was due to take place in the United States in early 2004. On 16 June 2005, she expressed
	genuine disappointment that the United States' authorities have not found the time or energy to ratify the provision.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1198.]
	Twelve months later, we are still waiting. There is considerable evidence in the United States that there are many bodiesincluding civil rights groups and the senators linked to themthat intend to prevent ratification from taking place if possible.
	It is not surprising that this state of affairs has come about. Why should the United States Government be bothered? As Baroness Scotland candidly explained, in a debate in the other place last year,
	the Extradition Act 2003 effectively implemented the provisions of the new UK/US extradition treaty.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2005; Vol. 673, c. 408.]
	She failed to add that this had happened on an entirely one-sided basis. The statutory instrument that was passed designated the United States under category 2. Extradition has become easy, and virtually all scrutiny has been removed. Bizarrely, this is completely contrary to article 9 of the treaty, which is still legally in force.
	When the Government proceeded to include the United States as a category 2 designation under the Extradition Act, they told us that this was essential for the prevention of terrorism and for bringing suspected terrorists to justice. That is plainly an important consideration, of which the House must be mindful. That being said, in the case of Mr. Lotfi Raissi, the Algerian national and airline pilot whose extradition from this country was sought after 9/11 on the grounds that he had failed to disclose information to the US authorities that might have prevented that attack, the United States Government had to operate under the old system of showing a prima facie case. As was graphically described to the Home Affairs Committee by the district judge who handled that matter, it became apparent in the course of proceedings that there was no case against him whatever, and there was a complete mistake as to his identity, who he was and what his involvement had been. Under the Extradition Act provisions as they currently stand, Mr. Raissi would have been extradited to the United States without more ado.
	Perhaps more relevantly, when anxiety was being expressed about the operation of the Extradition Act, the Government gave assurances that it would not extend to financial crime. Those were the very words of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), then a Home Office Minister. She was responding to a  Financial Times article expressing specific concern that offences such as price fixing, which were not offences in the United Kingdom but might have been offences in the United States in the past in parallel, could become extraditable. She said:
	We do not have such a range of offences involving financial crime. The cases mentioned by the  Financial Times such as price fixingwould not apply. Dual criminality would have to exist.[ Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 26.]
	It has become apparent that what she told the House on that occasion was completely erroneous.
	United States district attorneys, discoveringto their considerable pleasure, I am surethat extradition has become a mere mechanistic procedure in this country, have found ways of side-stepping problems with the lack of dual criminality. My constituent, Mr. Ian Norris, managing director of Morgan Crucible, is currently facing extradition for price fixing at a time when it was completely legal in the United Kingdom and all the decisions were taken here. The allegations have been changed to conspiracy to defraud, on the basis that that was the outcome as it affected the United States, thus getting round the dual criminality provisions. The Minister will be able to provide us with more information, but I understand that such examples are becoming numerous.
	In addition, the United States has also asserted jurisdiction in cases in which every bit of common sense dictates that the connection with the United States is extremely tenuous. The mere passage of an e-mail through a United States server is sufficient for the purposes of jurisdiction. In theoretical terms, that must give the USA almost universal worldwide jurisdiction over every crime. In the Enron case, extradition is being applied for in relation to defendants whose alleged crime is to have defraudeda serious offencea British bank of many millions of pounds in this country, when the bank has never alleged fraud and no proceedings have ever been brought here.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend mentions the Enron case, which involves serious amounts of money. Is he aware, however, that the powers extend to citizens who may have committed offences, however serious, involving no more than 1,000.01?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I am aware of that. The lowest threshold for such extradition to operate is 1,000. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that it can apply to individuals whose criminality may not appear high at all.
	No system is perfect, and I fully acknowledge that there are strong reasons why countries should co-operate to combat crime: there is nothing wrong with that. In allowing for extradition and securing the reciprocity that is so desirable, we must sometimes accept minor concerns about the operation of other countries' criminal justice systems, as long as we know that justice is the aim that they strive to achieve. However, we could have done very much better in the Extradition Act to prevent abuses such as those involved in the cases that I have described.
	Even if the United States does ratify the new treaty, there is a compelling case for our extending greater protection to defendants in extradition proceedings involving offences that are wholly unrelated to the United States. As I said at the outset, that is what amendments Nos. 116 and 117 seek to achieve.
	The Government have suggested that all this is a figment of the Opposition's imaginationor of that of their own Back Benchers who signed the early-day motion. They have suggested that we are all getting worked up about nothing, and that the system is perfectly sensible. It is worth pointing out that many other countries provide exactly the protection that the British Government chose to avoid in the Extradition Act. Article III of the Irish-USA treaty provides for refusal of extradition when the alleged offence is regarded under the law of the requested state as having been committed in its territory. Article V of the treaty provides for no extradition when the requested state has decided to refrain from prosecuting, or has discontinued proceedings.
	Before it is thought that this is a piece of Euro-bashing by the Opposition and that somehow the European arrest warrant is being held up to opprobrium, I should point out that article 4(7) of the European Union framework decision, on the basis of which the European Union arrest warrant was put together, allows for precisely this kind of exemption, which the Irish have used and the Government have chosen not to incorporate. Article 7(1) of the original 1957 European convention on extradition, brought about by the Council of Europea model of its kindsays exactly the same. So it is not a question of a degree of Euro-scepticism; it is a question of a degree of scepticism about why the Government seem so resolute about setting administrative convenience against the interests of justice.
	When the Scottish Parliament debated the issue recently, disquiet was expressed by every party about the way in which the system operates. There is no need for that disquiet to continue. The Government could see sense and do two things. First, they could enable us to have a better system that provides protection when there is no proper link between the individual and the state that seeks to extradite that individual for an offence. Secondly, in the case of the United States, the House should exercise a bit of will and common sense and say to a Government who seem to be incapable of carrying out sensible diplomatic negotiations, You will not get what you want unless you withhold what you are offering at the same time.
	The Government's decisionnot to ratify the treaty, because it cannot be fully ratified until the United States has ratified it, but gratuitously to provide the United States with all that it sought in the treatyis an error of judgment of monumental proportions. If the Government wish to see the advantages of the treaty, they would do well to accept new clause 8 and ensure that the United States is politely reminded that reciprocity is the absolute basis of international relations.

David Heath: I rise to speak in support of new clause 8, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his colleagues, and in mine. I do not wish to repeat large parts of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He and I have not disagreed at any stage in our interpretation and construction of what this extradition treaty means for British citizens. I simply chide him gently on one point, of which he will be aware: on consideration of the statutory instrument that dealt with the provision, the Conservatives, unlike my colleagues and I, were unable to vote against it. That was a mistaken view on their part.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, in that the House and the Conservative party accepted assurances from the Government that in the existing climate of terrorism, the operation of the extradition treaty was necessary. We did not fully appreciate the consequences that would flow from it.

David Heath: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and that he and his colleagues acted in good faith; I simply say that they were mistaken.
	I want to deal first with the lack of ratification on the part of the United States Congress. I find it quite astonishing that this treaty, which we have signed with those who are supposed to be our closest allies, is apparently of so little import in the US legislature. It is far from being a priority for Congress, which has found opportunities to ratify extradition treaties with Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Peru, but, apparently, cannot find an opportunity to give proper consideration to reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom. That says a lot for the supposedly special relationship that we enjoy with our friends in the United States.
	That would be cause for concern in itself, were it not for the extraordinarily asymmetric position of the treaty that the Government entered into. As I said in the Committee on the statutory instrument, even a Government acting under duress could not have signed a treaty that so badly sold short the interests of the citizens of this country, in comparison with those of another.  [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), says from a sedentary position that my observation is nonsense, but he or his hon. Friends will have to demonstrate why. This is clearly an entirely one-sided treaty. In fact, the then Minister [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he can explain to me, from the Dispatch Box, why my argument is nonsense. He has only just been reshuffled, yet he wants to interfere.
	In saying Nonsense from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to consider that the Minister then involved, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is now a Health Minister, was mistaken in saying that the treaty was asymmetric. She said:
	In contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States, we will need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that. Under the terms of its constitution the USA cannot set its evidential standard any lower than 'probable cause'.[ Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 7.]
	So on that day, the hon. Lady made no secret of the fact that there was an imbalance in the treaty, yet the hon. Gentleman says that that view is nonsense. The House will come to its own conclusions.  [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has arrivedshe no doubt remembers the occasion when we last discussed this issue and what was said then.
	All manner of changes were implicit in the proposal that was before us. First, the treaty changed the basis on which extradition could take place. A certain level of evidence used to be required, and there was a list of extraditable offences. However, the treaty removed that list and we now have simply a sentence threshold of 12 months. Any offence that attracts a sentence of more than 12 months becomes an extraditable offence. The House will immediately draw from that the conclusion that it is now open to any of the legislatures in the US to make any offence that it deems to require a sentence of more than 12 months an extraditable offence. That is my second point.
	When we talk about the US, we are not talking about a relationship between our jurisdiction and their jurisdiction. We have two separate jurisdictions, but they have 51, including not only the federal jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction of 50 states, from Alabama to Wyoming, with vastly different concepts of jurisprudence and legal systems. To be frank, we also have vastly different levels of confidence in the ability of those various legislatures to conduct a trial in the way in which we would expect. Not only do we have an asymmetric view, but we have a treaty that applies to 51 different jurisdictions and we have no control over what they might determine to be an extraditable offence.
	The defence that the Minister gave at the time was that we also have reciprocal extradition arrangements with other countries, and she mentioned other European countries and what could be termed the Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. But those systems are very much more similar to ours than are the American systems, so those comparisons are of no particular value. The US is a one-off in such terms.
	The next point is that the provisions were retrospective. Article 22.1 states:
	This Treaty shall apply to offenses committed before as well as after the date it enters into force.
	Not only have we a prospective asymmetric arrangement with the US, but we will allow them to extradite British citizens for offences that took place before the treaty was even signed, let alone ratifiedwhich looks unlikely to happen in the near future.
	On all those grounds, we have legitimate reasons for concern. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made another important point about the extraterritorial jurisdiction claimed by the US and by its states. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who attended the Committee, recalled the old joke that if one flies in a plane above the state of New York on one's way to California, the state of New York assumes a territorial jurisdiction on anything one may do. That is not far from the truth, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is a real concern when it comes to email traffic.
	We also have legitimate concerns when we see prospective extraditions for commercial crime against people operating in British companies that have connections with American companies, but whose activities are solely based in this country and who have never been to the great state of Delaware or Idaho, or wherever the American parent company may be based. Those people may be extraditable for matters that are not even offences in this country and were carried out in this country, not the US. They can be extradited and held in custody before trial in the US in a state in which they have never previously set foot. That is an extraordinary position to adopt.
	Another problem is that the level of evidence required does not go much beyond simple identification. The subject arouses much concern in this country, but the American investigatory bodies are not entirely foolproof in that regard. The House may recall a case that was current when we considered the Bill in Committee. It involved a Mr. Bond, arrested in South Africa at the request of FBI officials on the basis that he was really a Mr. Derek Sykes, who had defrauded many people out of millions of dollars. However, he really was Mr. Bond, a retired charity worker who worked in the Rotary club in Clifton in Bristol. He was nothing to do with the US, but he was imprisoned in South Africa on the basis of an identification by the FBI. Had he been in this country, he could have been extradited to stand trial for an offence and in a country of which he knew nothing, and on the basis that he was someone that he was not.
	That is not proper protection for people in this country. If we were sensible, we would say to the US Government, Look, given that you haven't ratified the treaty, we must look again at its terms. This time, we shall protect the interests of British citizens and apply the sort of tests that American Congressmen apply as a matter of course, even if they are not part of the provisions of the constitution. The minimum American requirement of probable cause is not so very different from our requirement of prima facie evidence, but we have thrown away all that protection for British citizens because it seemed a good idea at the time. The aim was to please an American Administration who have not yet been prepared to put the treaty through the American legislature.
	The Government are in a shameful position, and we were right to reject the proposal when it first came before us. We are right to support the new clause, which would bring an end to an asymmetric arrangement of no benefit to the UK.

Michael Howard: I begin by welcoming the Minister to his new responsibilities. Far be it from me to give him advice, but I assure him that the Home Office need not be a dysfunctional Department. I wish him well as he discharges his new responsibilities.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Attorney-General, has expressed the widely shared reservations on this issue with his usual admirable clarity. That will enable me to be relatively brief in adding my voice to those who have expressed concern about the matter.
	On 31 March 2003, the day that the treaty was signed, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), made a written statement to the House. He said:
	Before the treaty can come into force it needs to be ratified by the United States Senate[ Official Report, 31 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 42WS.]
	The Lord Chancellor gave a similar assurance in another place. However, the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 and the associated secondary legislation mean that those assurances have turned out to be completely worthless. This afternoon, the House has the opportunity to hold the Government to their word. If we are to take seriously our central responsibility of safeguarding the liberties of the individual against unfair, arbitrary or oppressive action by the Executive, we will seize that opportunity.
	It is difficult to imagine a more one-sided or unfair set of arrangements than those in existence at present. The treaty is itself one-sided: its effect, and that of the Act, is to lower substantially the requirements that the United States Government have to satisfy to secure the extradition of those who are accused of offences under United States law. What was previously reciprocal and similar has become unbalanced and one-sided.
	Today, we have the opportunity to put things right. As we have heard, the United States Senate has still to ratify the treaty. In plain language, the United States has not honoured its side of the deal: the ratification legislation is stuck in the Senate and shows no sign whatever of getting unstuck. That is hardly surprising, because as my hon. Friend pointed out, the United Kingdom has removed any incentive for the Senate to proceed. If, to gain the advantage that the treaty would, and the Act does, confer on the Government of the United States, the treaty had to be ratified by the US, it is a fair bet that more progress would have been made. By designating the United States, for the purpose of the Act, without the minimal degree of reciprocity that ratification would provide, the Government of the United Kingdom have surrendered the only lever of influence they possessed to secure what we assume is their objective.
	Fortunately, the House has the opportunity today to do what the Government themselves should have done. New clause 8 would remove the United States of America from the list of territories in paragraph 3(2) of the designation order and that would give the US Senate the incentive it needs. If and when the treaty is ratified the matter could be looked at again and the US could be restored to the list, as a subsequent amendment provides.
	I hope that the delay that the passage of new clause 8 would achieve would enable a fresh look to be taken at the arrangements in the treaty so that they can be revised. As has been said more than once, the arrangements are one-sided, and my hon. Friend has explained why. Some of the cases that have arisen since the Act came into force in that one-sided way have given rise to widespread concern.
	In Committee, the Minister's predecessor asked why the United States was being singled out for expressions of concern. I refer not to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)now a Minister of State at the Department of Healthwho was in the Chamber briefly a few moments ago, but to another former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), who is now Minister without Portfolio. The answer to the right hon. Lady's question is simple and twofold. First, as far as I am aware, no cases in respect of other jurisdictions have led to the same concerns. The proof of any legislative pudding is in the eating; it is in respect of the arrangements with the United States that cases of concern have arisen. That is no accident, and it brings me to the second point, to which my hon. Friend and the Liberal Democrat spokesman referred.
	The United States has a particular view on extraterritoriality. It claims for itself jurisdiction over acts that have not been committed in the United States and for which other countries, including ours, would make no similar claim. That should mean that any arrangements for extradition with the US need to be scrutinised with great care if the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects are not to be jeopardised.
	To make those points is not in any sense to be anti-American, and it was unworthy of the Minister's predecessor to make silly allegations of that kind in Committee. Some Opposition MembersI certainly include myself in thishave devoted a lifetime of energy to the improvement of relations between this country and the United States. That objective is not well served by the current unbalanced extradition arrangements between our two countries. Indeed, if they are allowed to continue they are likely to do significant damage to that relationship. I hope the House will make good use of the opportunity before us today to minimise that damage by restoring a degree of equity to the arrangements for extradition between our two countries.

John Maples: I rise to support everything that has been said by the three Members who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the speech that I should have liked to make in the debate. He covered the issues lucidly and made his points persuasively, and I should simply like to add some brief remarks.
	First, I want to put things in context. Until 11 September 2001, we were pretty relaxed about extradition. Cases were dragging through our courts, where the French had requested the extradition of someone whom they thought was involved in the Paris metro bombings. The Americans had also requested the extradition of three people whom they thought were involved in the east African embassy bombings. Those cases were strung out through our courts. No one in the Government seemed at all worried about the fact that Rachid Ramda had been in prison for six and half years by then. I think that he has now finally been sent to France. I do not think that the three people whom the United States wanted have been sent there. No one in the Governmentor, I agree, in the Opposition for that matterwas particularly worried about that at the time.
	Since 9/11, we seem to have gone into a panic. We have all signed up to the European arrest warrant, which has thrown out of the window all sorts of protections that we have had for ages, and we have apparently done the same with the United States. I simply do not understand why. I can understand that we needed far faster extradition proceedings, particularly in terrorism cases, because we were all very worried about them, but in the process we have thrown out all sorts of common law protections that have existed for absolutely ages, including dual criminality and the prima facie rule.
	There were two occasions on which the Home Secretary had to agree to the proceedings going ahead, each of which was subject to two appeals. I forget how many stages that process involvedseven or eight in the endbut they are the reason such cases often took so long. But why did we have to throw out all the existing protections? There was a perfectly good reason for dual criminality, and we have retained it in the treaty with the United States and in the European arrest warrant for those offences that are not included in the treaty list. I accept that we gave up the prima facie rule under an earlier Council of Europe treaty with our European partners and neighbours, but there was a backstop in that, the Home Secretary was entitled to ask whether it was in the interests of justice that such rules could be disapplied. Various legal protections were built in.
	I can understand the case for eliminating some of the protections. Perhaps the Home Secretary's discretion should have related to some fairly narrow pointsthe interest of justice, for instanceand perhaps he should have been able to exercise that discretion only once. Perhaps the prima facie rule could have been done away with in some cases. I have, however, always been worried about doing away with dual criminality. I do not understand how someone can be extradited from this country and prosecuted in another country if what they did was not an offence here at the time. However, we have now got ourselves into that position with the United States through the backdoor by allowing the prima facie evidence rule to be eroded. In so doing, we have effectively eroded the dual criminality rule as well.
	I do not understand why we went into a panic in September 2001, which resulted in the European arrest warrant, the treaty with the United States and the Extradition Act 2003. Many hon. Members made a great many of those points in considering the European arrest warrant and the Bill in Committee, but the Government were deaf to those arguments.
	Secondly, I want to deal with the US position. We got to this point as a result of bad negotiation, quite frankly. The Government did not foresee that the United States might not ratify the treaty. Anyone who has watched its refusal to extradite IRA terrorists over the past 30 years surely cannot be surprised that that is the main reason why ratification is being held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a couple of Senators, probably from New York and Massachusetts, who do not want to risk former terrorists who may still be living peacefully in San Francisco or somewhere else being extradited here. If we did not foresee that, it is a terrible mistake, but if we did, why did we not build into the treaty something to deal with itor why cannot we do so now? If that is the problem, why cannot we try to renegotiate the treaty now.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, the United States now has no incentive to ratify the treaty. What bothers me is that all this is set in the context of a lot of other issues. No Conservative Member, possibly barring my right hon. and learned Friend, could be more pro-American than I am, but I am deeply concerned that we have allowed ourselves to be put in the position not just of a junior partner, but one without any influence.
	There is a raft of things on which we are not getting what we want from the United Statesthe international traffic in arms regulations waiver, the second engine on, and the guarantee of the order for, the joint strike fighter, as well as the ratification of the treaty. I go to Washington about once or twice a year, and many of those things have been on that list for about nine or 10 years, and the Americans keep saying that something is happening, but it does not.
	The fact is that the Government are not taken seriously because they are lousy at negotiating. They give away their position up front and do not retain any cards to play at the end of the game when things get difficult. That is what has happened in this case. The Minister is new to the job and I ask him to think seriously about the points that have been made. I hope that he is listening, because I do not think that this is a party political issue.

Joan Ryan: I am listening.

John Maples: I am sorry. I was looking at the wrong Minister. Perhaps she is not so new to the job. I ask her to think seriously about this issue, because British citizens are being put at risk of serious injustice. The case of Ian Norris involves price fixing, which was not a criminal offence here at the time when he committed it. If the dual criminality rule were properly applied, he could not be extradited to the United States for it. However, because the United States can pick up on an offence for which there is dual criminality and charge him with that, it can apply the weak prima facie evidence test that is now in the treaty.
	I suggest that, inadvertently, the treaty with the United States and the Extradition Act are resulting inand will continue to result inserious miscarriages of justice in which innocent British citizens are put through extradition and a court procedure in the United States that they should not be put through. If the proper protections were in place, they would not be put through that. The Government must be galled that the United States Senate refuses to ratify the treaty, but they have it in their hands to accept the amendments, or something like them, and simply put the favourable treatment that the United States gets on holdin abeyance, in escrow, or whatever one wants to call ituntil the United States performs its side of the bargain. We would not have so much trouble then. However, I suspect that the United States will not ever implement its side of the bargain and that at some point we will have to renegotiate if we want to get the United States to sign up to a new treaty. Perhaps the sooner we get there, the better.
	In pursuit of the interests of justice, I hope that the Government will consider the matter again. They should not feel that it would be a terrible climbdown or loss of political machoism to admit that a mistake has been made. They can blame the United States. They need to find some way out of the problem that we have been led into by the Extradition Act.

Mark Pritchard: I rise to support the new clause that has been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We can understand why the Government have introduced a new extradition regime. The events of 9/11 are an important political context. I think that we would all agree that extradition laws needed to be updated and speeded up. However, that has been done at the cost of explicit due process, equity and fairness. Many critics of the treaty with the United States quite rightly cite the lack of reciprocity, which we have heard mentioned many times in the Chamber today. They suggest that the treaty is unbalanced, unfair and leaves UK citizens at a great disadvantage compared with US citizens. They are right. Unless the legislation is amended, UK business men and citizens will become increasingly vulnerable to over-zealous and extraterritorial US prosecutors.
	There is inequity not only in the process, but in the application of the law. It cannot be right that UK citizens alleged to have committed crimes in the United Kingdom, with perhaps the vaguest of links to any criminal activity in the United States, can be extradited without the requirement for prima facie evidence. In many cases, we no longer have physical borders when it comes to white-collar crime. Cybercrime and commercial crime through the internet are increasing. We need to be mindful of that. Nevertheless, cases need to be driven by evidence.
	Like the UK, the US should be required to provide evidence amounting to probable cause. Instead, the Government have created an extradition regime that has lowered the evidence threshold for the United States authorities alone. They have entered into an agreement that allows the US authorities to use extradition powers that perhaps go far beyond what the Government originally envisagedto be fair to them.
	I would like, if I may, to ask the Minister on a point of law whether the 2003 extradition treaty is actually ratified. We know that the 1972 treaty was ratified here in the United Kingdom and in the United States, but the 2003 treaty was ratified in the United Kingdom, but not in the United States. Was the treaty ratified? There are 44 cases involving people who might go to the United States, and I believe that 12 UK citizens have already left the country and gone to the US. If the treaty has not been ratified, is there not a case to say that the Government or the judicial process have acted ultra vires, or beyond their legal powers? There might be a strong case to answer on that, and I would be interested if the great legal minds in the House would like to advise me on the matter either inside or outside the Chamber.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) rightly said in his most excellent speech, there are many friends of the United States on both sides of the House. I declare an interest because my wife is a US citizen. However, we need to move to a position of equity, fairness and reciprocity so that US-UK relations are safeguarded.

Joan Ryan: It is with pride that I rise to speak at the Dispatch Box for the first time for my Government. I am especially pleased to be facing the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and to be in the Chamber with many other hon. Members, both in front of me and behind me, with whom I have long worked on Home Office matters. However, I have not been able to use my voice on these issues, certainly for the past four years, so I hope that I will use it well on this occasion and others to come.
	Government amendments Nos. 66 to 71, 78 and 79 are largely technical in nature. Government amendments Nos. 66 and 67 simply correct a drafting flaw in the Extradition Act 2003 to ensure that it reflects the devolution settlement.
	Paragraph 21 of schedule 14 to the Bill would extend legislative powers to allow time served abroad on remand while awaiting extradition to the UK to count towards a person's sentence. In practice, judges usually deduct time served abroad from sentences, but we had intended to take this opportunity to reflect the practice in legislation. However, on closer inspection, and bearing in mind recent changes to our domestic sentencing law, the provisions in paragraph 21 of schedule 14 do not close the technical gaps that we have identified in legislation relating to offenders who are convicted before, but sentenced after, extradition, and to certain juveniles. It became clear that paragraph 21 required amendment. Indeed, we have concluded that it would be better to omit paragraph 21 and its associated provisions and start again. The area of law is complex and it has taken further reflection to get an amendment right. Government amendment No. 69 ensures that the power to give credit for time served pending extradition applies equally to all, regardless of when the offender is convicted or sentenced in the UK, and regardless of the offender's age.
	Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and new clause 8. I should say at the outset that many Labour Members will be surprised by the content and tone of Conservative Members' remarks. I will explain why during the course of my speech and attempt to respond to the points that have been raised. However, I ask Conservative Members to bear in mind the limited time at my disposal today, because we wish to allow time for all Back Benchers to have a full opportunity to contribute.
	New clause 8 is perhaps the most surprising of the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled to this part of the Bill. We do not recall the official Opposition taking quite the same attitude to our extradition arrangements with the United States when the relevant legislation was debated in Parliament. They are now revealing a deep distrust of one of our longest and most trusted extradition partners. We look back to the Act of 2003. Conservative Members expressed shrill opposition to the European arrest warrant, which has proved its worth. We no longer hear that opposition. It seems that Conservative Members go about seeking their enemies. It is clear that

Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Joan Ryan: I will give way in a moment.
	It is clear that particular cases that we cannot discuss in the House have motivated some of the current concerns, but I am certain that those concerns are misplaced. The proposed amendments would have the effect of requiring the US once more to provide prima facie evidence with its extradition requests, as it did before the legislation of 2003, along with the subordinate legislation that came into effect.
	As we have said on many previous occasions, the 2003 Act provides a better and faster approach to extradition than previous legislation. It applies not only to the US, but to all our extradition partners. Some 47 other countries have exactly the same agreement with us, and we have exactly the same extradition arrangements. It may throw some illumination on the issue if I mention some of those countriesfor example, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, the Cook Islands, Macedonia, Jamaica, Kenya and the Russian Federation. Where else can we go? There is Turkey, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Australia, as I have said, Canada, Zimbabwe and the United States of America.

Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Joan Ryan: I will give way in a moment.
	We have before us a better and faster approach to extradition. Among the provisions was secondary legislation to designate those countries that do not need prima facie evidence. Those countries, some of which I have listed, are in category 2 for extradition consideration. The removal of the prima facie requirement was possible long before the 2003 Act came into force. The possibility dates back to when the Opposition were in Government in 1991, when the UK became an active party to the European convention on extradition.

Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Joan Ryan: I will give way in a moment.
	Signatories to the convention do not require prima facie evidence from one another. By the end of 2003, the convention applied between almost all European states. We have heard the convention praised by Conservative Members. It applied to almost all European states, including Russia and other former Soviet states, which are all members of the Council of Europe, as well as to Israel and South Africa. The convention still applies to our extradition arrangements with all these states except for those which have joined the European Union, with which we operate the European arrest warrant mechanism.

Michael Howard: Will the Minister identify any cases from any of the countries that she has so painstakingly and painfully listed that have given rise to concern and therefore make those countries relevant as compared with the United States, where we know that there has been a series of cases that has given rise to concern? Will the hon. Lady deal with the cases of concern that have been referred to by everyone who has spoken from the Opposition Benches rather thanI am sorry to say thisinsulting the intelligence of the House by reciting a list of countries in respect of which there have been no cause for concern?

Joan Ryan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman voices the deep distrust that we see in the new clause, and that is an astonishing position for the Conservative party to adopt.
	Returning to the list, we have added Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which do not require prima facie evidence, and the US, which the Opposition seek to remove.

Mark Pritchard: rose

Joan Ryan: I am sorry that I shall not accept any more Back-Bench interventions, as there is very little time.
	We added the US to the list because, despite what the Opposition imply, it is a trusted extradition partner and a mature democracy with a fair system of justice. Its requests therefore deserve at least the same level of consideration as requests from other countries.

Dominic Grieve: Why did we embark on a treaty revision with the United States if we could have proceeded on the basis of what she has said, and given the US what it wanted? We embarked on that revision because we believed that we could benefit from concessions by the United States. Surely, that is the basis of trust, buttrust cannot be maintained without reciprocity. Furthermore, as the Minister well knows, while some aspects of the US legal system seek justice, they can be onerous and the extra-territoriality of US jurisdiction is quite extraordinary.

Joan Ryan: There is a deep misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition of the issue of reciprocity, perhaps because of certain cases that have arisen. We have reciprocity precisely because of the Extradition Act 2003. Before it was passed, the bar for the US to extradite people from the United Kingdom was much higher, and was based on prima facie evidence. For the UK to extradite people from the US, the requirement was probable cause but, as a result of the 2003 Act, we have come into line. One could characterise the requirement as one of reasonable suspicion, but the reciprocal arrangement is based on the fact that it is not just identification that is required. Sufficient information is needed to issue a warrant for arrest, and that is the basis of reciprocity with the United States. There is never 100 per cent. reciprocity, but probable cause and reasonable suspicion are equivalent. We do not require prima facie evidence from many of the countries on the list, because we trust their judicial system and we have reciprocity. However, we do require prima facie evidence from the Cook Islands and other countries.
	Turning to the proposal to insert the word, forum, in schedule 14, the Opposition wish to turn our prosecutorial system on its head and subvert it. They suggest setting up a system whereby a judge considering a request to extradite an individual makes a decision as to whether they should be prosecuted in this country. If they do not think that they should be, that individual could escape scot-free. Extradition aims to bring people who have committed a crime to justice. The ordinary people of this or any other country want justice to be applied equally to the perpetrators of white-collar crime and to the perpetrators of any other crime. The 2003 Act aims to speed up and simplify the process, but it has never applied only to terrorist acts. It applies to any crime that attracts a 12-month sentence. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments.

Dominic Grieve: Although I warmly welcome the Minister's arrival at the Dispatch Box, I cannot welcome her words this afternoon. She has failed completely to meet the issues that have been raised. She suggested that asking judges to consider the question of forum is in some way wrong. Judges deal with abuse of process applications frequently. It is perfectly within their competence to do so. I find incomprehensible her misunderstanding of the issues concerning the United States, our friend and ally. If we want to maintain friendship and alliance, reciprocity is the basis.
	 It being Six o'clock, Mr. deputy speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [6 March].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 35
	  
	Sentences of imprisonment for bail offences

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 30, line 20, leave out 'a summary conviction for'  [Mr. Byrne.]

Clause 44
	  
	Orders and regulations

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 35, line 36, after 'Secretary of State,' insert
	'( ) a Registrar General,'.
	No. 45, in page 36, line 21, at end insert
	'( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under paragraph 48 of Schedule 1 made by the Scottish Ministers may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Scottish Parliament.'.  [Mr. Byrne.]

Clause 48
	  
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 37, line 30, after 'paragraphs 9(3)(a)' insert ', 15A, 15B'.
	No. 47, in page 37, line 32, after 'paragraphs' insert '27A, 29A,'.  [Mr. Byrne.]

Clause 49
	  
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 39, line 23, at end insert
	'( ) Section (Supply of information to police etc by Registrar General) extends also to Northern Ireland.'.  [Mr. Byrne.]

Schedule 1
	  
	National policing improvement agency

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 53, line 12, leave out
	'by a scheme under section 19 of'
	and insert
	'under an amalgamation scheme under'.
	No. 50, in page 56, line 21, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert
	'appropriate authority (see sub-paragraph (3A))'.
	No. 51, in page 57, line 3, at end insert
	'(3A) Power of the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (1)
	(a) so far as it is power to make provision falling within sub-paragraph (3B), is power of the Scottish Ministers, and
	(b) so far as it is power to make provision not falling within sub-paragraph (3B), is power of the Secretary of State.
	(3B) The provision falling within this sub-paragraph is provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were included in an Act of that Parliament.
	(3C) Power of the Scottish Ministers under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only with the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(3D) Power of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) and (c), so far as it is power to make provision falling within sub-paragraph (3E), is exercisable only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
	(3E) The provision falling within this sub-paragraph is provision
	(a) that affects, or may affect, any of the persons mentioned in paragraph 4(2) (police forces, and other policing bodies, in Scotland), or
	(b) that affects, or may affect, the rights and powers of the Scottish Ministers.
	(3F) Power of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1)(d), so far as it is power to impose obligations on any of the persons mentioned in paragraph 4(2), is exercisable only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.'.
	No. 52, in page 57, line 12, at end insert
	'(4A) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1), the Scottish Ministers must consult
	(a) the Agency,
	(b) the Scottish Police Services Authority,
	(c) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of chief constables of police forces in Scotland, and
	(d) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of bodies within sub-paragraph (4C).
	(4B) Before deciding whether to give consent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3D) or (3F), the Scottish Ministers must consult
	(a) the Scottish Police Services Authority,
	(b) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of chief constables of police forces in Scotland, and
	(c) persons whom the Scottish Ministers consider to represent the interests of bodies within sub-paragraph (4C).
	(4C) A body is within this sub-paragraph if it is
	(a) the police authority for a police area in Scotland that is not combined, by virtue of an amalgamation scheme under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c.77), with any other police area in Scotland, or
	(b) a joint police board constituted under such a scheme.'.
	No. 53, in page 57, line 21, after 'including' insert
	', without prejudice to the generality of section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30),'.
	No. 119, in page 61, line 18, at end insert
	'67A In section 90(4) (impersonation etc: interpretation), for the words after paragraph (a) and before paragraph (b) (paragraph (aa) having been superseded by section 68(2) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003) there is substituted
	(ab) member of a police force includes a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is a constable, and.
	67B (1) Section 91 (offence of causing disaffection amongst members of police forces etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2) (offence under subsection (1) of causing disaffection etc amongst members of police forces applies also in relation to certain other police personnel), after paragraph (a) there is inserted
	(aa) members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who are constables,.
	(3) After subsection (2) there is inserted
	(3) Liability under subsection (1) for any behaviour in relation to members of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency is in addition to any civil liability for that behaviour..'.
	No. 120, in page 63, line 2, leave out
	'In section 29(3)(c) of the Police Reform Act 2002'
	and insert
	'The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
	In section 9(3) (persons ineligible for membership of the Independent Police Complaints Commission), after paragraph (da) there is inserted
	(db) he is or has been
	(i) the chairman or chief executive of, or
	(ii) another member of, or
	(iii) another member of the staff of,
	the National Policing Improvement Agency;.
	76A (1) Section 10 (general functions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) (general functions), after paragraph (g) there is inserted ; and
	(h) to carry out functions in relation to the National Policing Improvement Agency which correspond to those conferred on the Commission in relation to police forces by paragraph (e) of this subsection.
	(3) In subsection (3) (functions conferred by other provisions), after paragraph (ba) there is inserted
	(bb) any agreement under section 26B of this Act (National Policing Improvement Agency);.
	(4) In subsection (7)(c) (Commission may impose charges for making recommendations, and giving advice, for purposes of subsection (1)(g)), after subsection (1)(g) there is inserted or (h).
	76B (1) Section 11 (reports) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6) (persons to whom Independent Police Complaints Commission must send copies of its annual reports), after paragraph (d) there is inserted ; and
	(e) to the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	(3) After subsection (9) there is inserted
	(9A) Where a report under subsection (3) relates to the National Policing Improvement Agency, the Commission shall send a copy of that report to the Agency.
	(4) In subsection (10) (persons to whom reports under subsection (4) must be sent), after paragraph (g) there is inserted ; and
	(h) the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	76C (1) Section 15 (general duties of police authorities etc in relation to Part 2 of the Act) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1A) there is inserted
	(1B) It shall be the duty of the National Policing Improvement Agency to ensure that it is kept informed, in relation to the Agency, about all matters falling within subsection (2).
	(3) For the second sentence of subsection (8) (meaning of third force in subsection (8)) there is substituted
	(8A) Where the person who requires assistance and co-operation under subsection (5) is a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency
	(a) the chief officer of a third force, or
	(b) the police authority maintaining a third force,
	may be required to give that assistance and co-operation only with the approval of the chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	(8B) In subsections (8) and (8A) third force, in relation to an investigation, means any police force other than the force to which the person whose conduct is under investigation belonged at the time of the conduct.
	(4) In subsection (9) (approval that is needed before Director General of Serious Organised Crime Agency can be required to give assistance etc under subsection (5)), for the words after paragraph (b) there is substituted
	the Agency may be required to give assistance and co-operation under subsection (5) only with the approval of the relevant directing officer.
	(5) After subsection (9) there is inserted
	(10) In subsection (9) the relevant directing officer
	(a) in a case where the person who requires assistance and co-operation belongs to a police force, means the chief officer of that force; and
	(b) in a case where the person who requires assistance and co-operation is a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency, means the chief executive of that Agency.
	76D After section 16 there is inserted
	16A Investigations: National Policing Improvement Agency involvement
	(1) Where a police authority or chief officer requires the NPIA and its chief executive to provide a member of the NPIA's staff who is a constable for appointment under paragraph 16, 17 or 18 of Schedule 3, it shall be the duty of the NPIA and its chief executive to comply with the requirement.
	(2) It shall be the duty of the NPIA and its chief executive to ensure that a person appointed under paragraph 16, 17 or 18 of Schedule 3 to carry out an investigation is given all such assistance and co-operation in the carrying-out of that investigation as that person may reasonably require.
	(3) It shall be the duty of the NPIA and its chief executive to provide the Commission and every member of the Commission's staff with all such assistance as the Commission or that member of staff may reasonably require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying-out of any investigation by the Commission under this Part.
	(4) Where the person who requires assistance and co-operation under subsection (2) is a person serving with the police, the NPIA and its chief executive may be required to give that assistance and co-operation only with the approval of the chief officer of the force to which that person belongs.
	(5) Where the person who requires assistance and co-operation under subsection (2) is a member of the staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the NPIA and its chief executive may be required to give that assistance and co-operation only with the approval of the Director General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
	(6) Subsection (7) applies where the NPIA and its chief executive comply with a requirement under subsection (1) or (2) that is made in connection with
	(a) an investigation relating to the conduct of a person who, at the time of the conduct, was a member of a police force; or
	(b) an investigation of a DSI matter in relation to which the relevant officer was, at the time of the death or serious injury, a member of a police force.
	(7) The police authority maintaining the police force mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) shall pay to the NPIA such contribution (if any) towards the costs of compliance with the requirement
	(a) as may be agreed between them; or
	(b) in the absence of an agreement, as may be determined in accordance with any arrangements which
	(i) have been agreed to by police authorities generally and by the NPIA, and
	(ii) are for the time being in force with respect to the making of contributions towards the costs of compliance by the NPIA and its chief executive with requirements of the kind mentioned in subsection (6); or
	(c) in the absence of any such arrangements, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(8) Where the NPIA and its chief executive comply with a requirement under subsection (3), the Commission shall pay to the NPIA such contribution (if any) towards the costs of compliance with the requirement
	(a) as may be agreed between the Commission and the NPIA; or
	(b) in the absence of an agreement, as may be determined in accordance with any arrangements which
	(i) have been agreed to by the Agency and by the Commission, and
	(ii) are for the time being in force with respect to the making of contributions towards the costs of compliance by the NPIA and its chief executive with requirements under subsection (3); or
	(c) in the absence of any such arrangements, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(9) In this section the NPIA means the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	76E In section 17 (provision of information to the Independent Police Complaints Commission), after subsection (5) there is inserted
	(6) In this section
	chief officer includes the chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency;police authority includes the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	76F After section 26A insert
	26B National Policing Improvement Agency
	(1) The Commission and the National Policing Improvement Agency must enter into an agreement for the establishment in relation to members of the Agency's staff of procedures corresponding or similar to those provided for by or under this Part.
	(2) An agreement under this section
	(a) must not be made or varied except with the approval of the Secretary of State; and
	(b) must not be terminated unless
	(i) it is replaced by another such agreement, and
	(ii) the Secretary of State approves.
	(3) An agreement under this section may contain provision for enabling the Commission to bring and conduct, or otherwise participate or intervene in, any proceedings which are identified by the agreement as disciplinary hearings in relation to members of the Agency's staff.
	(4) An agreement under this section must not confer any function on the Commission in relation to so much of any complaint or conduct matter as relates to the direction and control of the Agency by the Agency's chief executive or by other members of the Agency.
	(5) Procedures established in accordance with an agreement under this section shall have no effect in relation to anything done outside England and Wales by any member of the Agency's staff.
	76G In section 29(3)(c)'.
	No. 121, in page 63, line 4, at end insert
	'76H (1) Schedule 3 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc.) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 16(3) (investigations by the appropriate authority on its own behalf: appointment of person to conduct investigation), after paragraph (b) there is inserted or
	(c) a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is a constable,.
	(3) In paragraph 17(2) (investigations supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission: appointment of person to conduct investigation), after paragraph (b) there is inserted or
	(c) a member of the staff of the National Policing Improvement Agency who is a constable,.
	(4) In paragraph 17(4) (power of Commission to require different person to be selected to conduct investigation), for or (b) there is substituted , (b) or (c).'. [Mr Byrne.]

Schedule 2
	  
	Amendments to the Police Act 1996

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 66, line 22, at end insert
	'( ) the conduct of proceedings of a panel, including any procedures that a panel is to follow,'.
	No. 55, in page 66, line 32, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'one or more vice-chairmen'.
	No. 56, in page 66, line 35, leave out
	'the chairman and vice-chairman are'
	and insert
	'a chairman or vice-chairman is'.
	No. 57, in page 66, line 38, leave out 'the chairman and' and insert 'a chairman or'.
	No. 58, in page 66, line 48, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
	No. 59, in page 68, line 36, at end insert
	'( ) the conduct of proceedings of the panel, including any procedures that the panel is to follow,'.
	No. 60, in page 68, line 46, leave out 'vice-chairman' and insert 'one or more vice-chairmen'.
	No. 61, in page 69, line 1, leave out
	'the chairman and vice-chairman are'
	and insert
	'a chairman or vice-chairman is'.
	No. 62, in page 69, line 4, leave out 'the chairman and' and insert 'a chairman or'.
	No. 63, in page 69, line 14, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.
	No. 64, in page 72, line 30, at end insert
	'Appointment of deputy chief constables etc
	15A (5) Section 11A (appointment and removal of deputy chief constables) is amended as follows.
	(6) In subsection (1) (police forces to have a deputy chief constable), for a deputy chief constable there is substituted one or more deputy chief constables.
	(7) For subsection (2) there is substituted
	(2) The appointment of a person to be a deputy chief constable of a police force shall be made, in accordance with regulations under section 50, by the police authority responsible for maintaining that force.
	(2A) Where the police authority responsible for maintaining a police force
	(a) proposes to increase the number of deputy chief constables that the force has, or
	(b) proposes to appoint a particular person to be a deputy chief constable,
	it may do so only after consultation with the chief constable and subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
	15B (1) Section 12A (power of deputy to exercise functions of chief constable) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for A deputy chief constable there is substituted The appropriate deputy chief constable.
	(3) After that subsection there is inserted
	(1A) The appropriate deputy chief constable for the purposes of subsection (1) is
	(a) in the case of a police force that has only one deputy chief constable, the deputy chief constable;
	(b) in the case of a police force that has more than one deputy chief constable, the most senior deputy chief constable.
	(1B) The chief constable of a police force that has more than one deputy chief constable shall, after consulting the police authority responsible for maintaining the force, designate the deputy chief constables in order of seniority for the purposes of subsection (1A)(b).
	(1C) During any absence, incapacity or suspension from duty of the person who
	(a) is designated as the most senior deputy chief constable for the purposes of subsection (1A)(b), or
	(b) is treated under this subsection as the most senior deputy chief constable,
	the person designated as the next most senior deputy chief constable shall be treated as the most senior one for those purposes.
	(4) For subsection (2) there is substituted
	(2) The chief constable of a police force shall, after consulting the police authority responsible for maintaining the force, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable in that force to exercise or perform any or all of the powers or duties of the chief constable during any period when
	(a) the chief constable is absent, incapacitated or suspended from duty and
	(i) the deputy chief constable, or each of the deputy chief constables, is also absent, incapacitated or suspended from duty, or
	(ii) the office of the deputy chief constable, or of each of the deputy chief constables, is vacant;
	or
	(b) the office of the chief constable is vacant and
	(i) the office of the deputy chief constable, or of each of the deputy chief constables, is also vacant, or
	(ii) the deputy chief constable, or each of the deputy chief constables, is absent, incapacitated or suspended from duty.
	(5) In subsection (5), for subsections (1) and (2) there is substituted subsections (1) to (2).'. [Mr. Byrne.]

Schedule 2
	  
	Amendments to the Police Act 1996

Amendment proposed: No. 82, in page 73, line 18, at end insert
	 'Referendums on proposals to alter police areas
	20A After section 33 (Objections to alterations proposed by Secretary of State) there is inserted
	33A Referendums on proposals to alter police areas
	(1) Before making an order under section 32 the Secretary of State shall by order cause a referendum to be held in every area affected about the proposed alteration in police areas.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1)
	(a) in relation to a proposed alteration made under section 32(3)(a), after he has received a request under that subsection;
	(b) in relation to a proposed alteration made under section 32(3)(b), after he has given further notice to objectors under section 33(4)(b).
	(3) The question to be asked in a referendum to be held in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) above shall be agreed by
	(a) the Secretary of State,
	(b) each police authority affected by the proposed alteration, and
	(c) the Electoral Commission.
	and specified in the order.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with
	(a) each police authority affected by the proposed alteration, and
	(b) the Electoral Commission
	ensure that an order made under subsection (1) above makes such provision as is necessary to secure the proper conduct of a referendum.
	(5) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall not exercise his power to make an order under section 32 unless a majority of votes cast in a referendum held under this section in each of the existing areas affected supports the proposed alteration. '. [Nick Herbert.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 74, line 11, leave out paragraphs 24 to 26. [Lynne Featherstone.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 7
	  
	Amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 91, line 27, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert
	'(a) , 6A(1) is omitted;
	(b) after regulations under there is inserted section 6 or 17A or'. [Mr. Byrne.]

Schedule 14
	  
	Extradition

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 133, line 6, leave out paragraph 15.
	No. 67, in page 133, line 29, at end insert
	'Scotland: references to Secretary of State
	In section 141 (Scotland: references to Secretary of State), in subsection (2), after Secretary of State there is inserted in paragraph (b) of section 70(2), in paragraph (c) of section 93(4) and.'.
	No. 68, in page 134, leave out from line 25 to line 11 on page 135.
	No. 69, in page 137, line 23, at end insert
	'Credit against sentence for periods of remand in custody of persons extradited to UK
	In section 101 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6) (detention and training orders: term of order, taking account of remands, etc), after subsection (12) there is inserted
	(12A) Section 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (persons extradited to the United Kingdom) applies in relation to a person sentenced to a detention and training order as it applies in relation to a fixed-term prisoner, with the reference in subsection (2) of that section to section 240 being read as a reference to subsection (8) above.
	In section 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (persons extradited to the United Kingdom), in subsection (1), after imposed there is inserted or he received that sentence.
	(1) Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53) (persons extradited to the United Kingdom) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after imposed there is inserted or he received that sentence.
	(3) After subsection (3) there is inserted
	(3A) This section applies in relation to a person sentenced to a detention and training order as it applies in relation to a short-term or long-term prisoner, and as it so applies
	(a) the reference in subsection (2) above to section 67 of the 1967 Act shall be read as a reference to section 101(8) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; and
	(b) the reference in that subsection to a relevant period shall be read as a reference to the period mentioned in the said section 101(8).'.
	No. 70, in page 137, leave out lines 25 to 29.
	No. 71, in page 137, leave out from line 33 to line 6 on page 138. [Mr. Byrne.]

Schedule 15
	  
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 139, line 35, at end insert
	' In section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer before charge), in subsection (7B)
	(a) for released under subsection (7)(a) there is substituted dealt with under subsection (7)(a);
	(b) after he is being released there is inserted , or (as the case may be) detained,.
	(1) Section 37B of that Act (consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for released on bail under section 37(7)(a) there is substituted dealt with under section 37(7)(a).
	(3) In subsection (4), for shall give written notice there is substituted shall give notice.
	(4) After that subsection there is inserted
	(4A) Notice under subsection (4) above shall be in writing, but in the case of a person kept in police detention under section 37(7)(a) above it may be given orally in the first instance and confirmed in writing subsequently.
	(5) In subsection (8), for paragraph (a) there is substituted
	(a) when he is in police detention at a police station (whether because he has returned to answer bail, because he is detained under section 37(7)(a) above or for some other reason), or'.
	No. 72, in page 144, line 2, at end insert
	'Police Act 1997 (c.50)
	27A In section 94 of the Police Act 1997 (authorisations given in absence of authorising officer), for paragraph (a) of subsection (4) (meaning of designated deputy) there is substituted
	(a) in the case of an authorising officer within paragraph (a) of section 93(5), means
	(i) the person who is the appropriate deputy chief constable for the purposes of section 12A(1) of the Police Act 1996, or
	(ii) the person holding the rank of assistant chief constable designated to act under section 12A(2) of that Act;.'.
	No. 73, in page 144, line 13, at end insert
	'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23)
	29A In section 34 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (grant of authorisations in senior officer's absence), for paragraph (a) of subsection (6) (meaning of designated deputy) there is substituted
	(a) in relation to the chief constable for a police force in England and Wales, means
	(i) the person who is the appropriate deputy chief constable for the purposes of section 12A(1) of the Police Act 1996, or
	(ii) a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable who is designated to act under section 12A(2) of that Act;
	(aa) in relation to the chief constable for a police force in Scotland, means
	(i) a person holding the rank of deputy chief constable and, where there is more than one person in the police force who holds that rank, who is designated as the officer having the powers and duties conferred on a deputy chief constable by section 5A(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, or
	(ii) a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable who is designated to act under section 5A(2) of that Act;.'.
	No. 74, in page 144, line 14, at end insert
	' In section 40 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (community safety accreditation schemes), subsection (7) is omitted.'.
	No. 123, in page 149, line 25, at end insert
	'Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4)
	In section 8(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (appointment of Head and Deputy Head of Criminal Justice), in paragraph (b) (person appointed must be ordinary judge of Court of Appeal), for an ordinary judge there is substituted a judge.'. [Mr. Byrne.]

Schedule 16
	  
	Repeals and Revocations

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 151, line 14, column 2, at beginning insert
	
		
			  'In section 10(1), the word and preceding paragraph (g). 
			  In section 11(a) in subsection (6), the word and preceding paragraph (d);(b) in subsection (10), the word and preceding paragraph (g).'. 
		
	
	No. 75, in page 151, line 27, at end insert
	
		
			 'Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) Section 107(6).'. 
		
	
	No. 76, in page 152, line 10, at end insert
	
		
			  'Section 40(7).'. 
		
	
	No. 77, in page 152, line 38, at end insert
	
		
			 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) In section 114(2), , 6A(1).'. 
		
	
	No. 78, in page 155, leave out lines 30 to 35.
	No. 79, in page 155, leave out line 42. [Mr. Byrne.]
	Title

Title

Amendment made: No. 80, in title, line 4, after 'others;' insert
	'to make provision about the supply to the police and others of information contained in registers of death;'. [Mr. Byrne.]

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may well say that what I am about to do is to make a point of frustration, rather than a point of order. However, the frustration is not just mine; it is shared by the House as a whole. The whole of part 4 has not been discussed today, as a result of the tight timetable that the Government have imposed on the House. Is there any way in which you, Sir, can advise the other place that this House has been unable to do its duty to the Bill in relation to part 4, which deals not with just some ordinary issue of party political debate, but with a matter of great importance: the inspectorate of prisons and of other Government services? Could you tell your counterparts in the other place that they need to do an awful lot of work to ensure that this Bill receives the proper scrutiny that it deserves?

Mr. Speaker: It takes me all my time to advise this House, without extending my advice to the other place. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the programme motion was agreed on by the House, so I am bound by it. I know the frustration and difficulties to which he refers.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	In concluding our debates on the measures before us, I want to put on the record my gratitude, and that of my Front-Bench colleagues, for the extraordinary contributions made by my right hon. Friends the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the Minister without Portfolio, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), now Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They advanced not only this Bill but an entire agenda of security, peace and safety that is already making a substantive difference to the communities we serve. The Bill strengthens the spine of policing in this country in a new century. It contains measures that deal with international justice, national support, force effectiveness and command unit power, and which provide a new step up for neighbourhood policing.
	Yesterday, in the space of one afternoon, I had the privilege of seeing how policing is changing across that entire domain. At the commendation ceremony led by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Home Secretary and I heard at first hand of the courage and devotion of officers in tackling an international threat that mobilised an entire country in response; that response was delivered through the force of the Metropolitan police. As I left that ceremony in the afternoon, I was lucky enough to meet Chief Superintendent Mark Ricketts, the borough commander of Barnet, and his neighbourhood officers, who, using the new investment in neighbourhood policing and new neighbourhood policing methods, in which we have put such trust and such investment, have cut crime in one ward by 17 per cent. in a year.
	What unites these stories is the professionalism, innovation, dedication to duty and passion to change our community that lives and breathes in every serving officer in today's police. This Bill gives strength to those men and women and the teams they serve in, at every level and in every area of their operations. The provisions in the Bill will, at one end of the spectrum, help combat the antisocial behaviour that is the scourge of many neighbourhoods and, at the other end, enhance international co-operation in the battle against 21st century crimes such as computer hacking.
	Internationally, crime is changing. A new alliance between failed states and criminality will foster new threats to us. We must prepare and respond. The provisions of the Bill do not touch on arrangements between the US and the UK, but they do make important improvements to our extradition regime, which should, I believe, be welcomed by both sides of the House.
	Much of the debate so far has been characterised, as we saw again this afternoon, by myths and misunderstandings about the arrangements, compounded by some currently high-profile, but individual cases. As ever, we are ready to have a rational debate on these issues, but it needs to be on the basis of the facts, not on spurious assertions.
	Nationally, there is much more we must and will do to support police effectiveness. Key to the future will be the establishment of the National Policing Improvement Agency, which will drive improvements in policing. The agency will be police owned and led. The creation of the NPIA will deliver a rationalised and more dynamic national landscape. It will give the police service the capability to deliver the mission-critical priorities set out in the annual national community safety plan, including the rollout of neighbourhood policing and full implementation of the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry.
	Regionally, there are measures that we must take if we are to respond to the findings of Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary that too few forces have the resilience to tackle terrorism and organised crime. We cannot and will not fail to act in the light of those conclusions.
	At times, the debate about police reform has overshadowed many of the proposals in the Bill. Of course, this Bill does not provide for the amalgamation of forcesfor that we are following procedures set down by a previous Administration in the Police Act 1996. The amendments to schedule 2 adopted today, however, will help to ensure that strategic authorities can conduct their business effectively and that strategic forces have sufficient command resilience.
	Locally, too, this Bill takes our agenda forward. The Bill will underpin much stronger partnerships in networks that make a difference, including networks with local communities. The accountability framework for police forces and their community safety partners will be rendered more robust and more responsive to the voice of the citizen.
	We recognise that accountability is essential to the future effectiveness of the police. The Bill therefore seeks to strengthen the role of police authorities, first by ensuring that their members have the skills and experience necessary to undertake the challenging role that they perform and, secondly, by conferring on authorities an express duty to hold the chief officer to account.
	The Bill will also strengthen the effectiveness of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and their equivalent partnerships in Wales, in addressing local community safety priorities, and it will ensure that the citizen can raise areas of concern through the community call for action.
	Finally, these changes frame the important stage for so many of us, which is the return of neighbourhood policing. These reforms are being implemented against the backdrop of our commitment to roll out neighbourhood policing in every community by April 2007. The embedding of neighbourhood policing teams will ensure that policing continues to be delivered locally, by officers and police staff working in local communities and responding to their community safety priorities.
	The Bill will ensure that the police and the wider policing family have the powers they need to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour effectively. At neighbourhood level, community support officers will have a standard set of powers so that they can play their full part in neighbourhood policing. Safer communities cannot be achieved by the Government, or the police service, alone. Ultimately, people will feel safe and secure only when everyone behaves in a respectful way. That is why the drive behind the respect campaign is so important, and I am therefore very pleased that the Bill takes forward some of the key measures in the respect action plan. I am very glad that many of the Bill's provisions, such as the new truancy power for CSOs, the community call for action and the extension of parenting contracts and orders, have been broadly welcomed.
	Finally, let me underline that, by making these changes, we wish to strengthen the tripartite relationship that so distinguishes the British service. It has always been the responsibility of Government to set the overall framework and the strategic priorities for policing. That is the Home Secretary's traditional role in the tripartite relationship. We seek to make the Government as effective a partner as possible in that relationship in future, but we want all partners in the tripartite relationship to be equipped to fulfil their role in meeting the challenge of delivering the high-quality policing that the public rightly expect and deserve.
	I very much welcome the good-natured contributions made by the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). I know that the Minister without Portfolio would want to associate herself with those sentiments. We have improved the Bill during our deliberations, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House and wishing it a speedy passage in another place.

Nick Herbert: The central premise of the Bill is that Ministers believe that they know what is best for local communities. They make the mistake of thinking that extending Government control over policing will cause standards to rise. If the Government had a record of excellence in administration, the people might be willing to trust them in the matter, but they do not: the Home Office is a shambles, and the National Audit Office has failed to sign off on its accounts. In addition, there have been the catastrophic failures to deport foreign offenders and to deal with offenders on release from prison.
	What is in the Government's record that makes them think that they will do a better job of running the police than police authorities or forces? The centralising measures in the Bill are clear, and include new powers for the Home Secretary to shape police authorities and to intervene in them. The powers of CSOs will be standardised, and the National Policing Improvement Agency created.
	On the other side of the equation, there are very few decentralising measures. The only one that I can see is the community call for action, but the former police Minister said that that involved powers of last resort and that it was not a
	mainstream way of doing business.
	We had real concerns about some of the proposals in the Bill. They include the extension of summary justice, which we debated this afternoon, and the combined inspectorate of justice, communities, safety and custody. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) noted in a point of order before this debate, we did not discuss that latter provision this afternoon. Thus, the timetable for this Bill denied debate on a very important matter that is causing wide concern outside the House, especially in relation to the prisons inspectorate. There is concern about that inspectorate's independence and the calibre of the inspector himself. In addition, the need to inspect prisons is a special case, as it is important to ensure that performance targets are met and human rights observed. We will have to leave to another place all those serious matters, which were barely discussed in Committee.
	We tried to improve the Bill with amendments that would have made it clear that the Home Secretary should intervene in police authorities only as a last resort and given chief constables more discretion over the powers of CSOs. They were rejected, as was every Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment. Although the Minister said that he thought that the Bill had been improvedI accept that our debate has been good naturedthe truth is that the Government have not accepted a single Opposition amendment. I recognise that the Government exhibited good will in relation to the amendment on child protection measures tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but that is the exception that proves the rule.
	Local accountability is being weakened. Policing in this country emerged from localities, and that is where it must surely remain if it is to retain legitimacy and consent.
	A distinguished former Member of the House, Tony Benn, set three tests for institutions. He asked: who has power, where does it come from, and how does the citizen call an institution to account? Being able to communicate with local policing teams is no substitute for a proper link between citizens and chief constables. This Bill, together with police force amalgamation, seriously weakens that link. I therefore regret very much that we have been unable to improve it.
	There is just enough in the Bill for us not to want to oppose it outright; in particular, there are the provisions on computer misuse and the forfeiture of indecent photographs of children. But that was a finely balanced decision on our part, and I regret that we have not had more opportunities to debate some of the more contentious measures.
	In conclusion, the chief constable of West Yorkshire police, who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on constitutional issues, has said that the Bill
	represents a centralisation of power over policing, which has never been experienced in this country since the founding of modern policing in 1829.
	I emphasise that he is the spokesman for ACPO on the matter. We know, because the Minister confirmed it, that the Government are planning to introduce a national policing board with the Home Secretary in the chair. Let us be clear

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nick Herbert: No, I apologise to my hon. Friend but I do not have time.
	The Home Secretary is steadily assuming control of policing. That is the choice that the Government have made. Ultimately, that will make the Government, the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers accountable for the performance of the police. That is their choice, and we will hold them accountable.

Lynne Featherstone: Our debates on the Bill have been good natured, especially in Committee, and some interesting amendments were proposed. Unfortunately, the Government took none of them on board, although I have to correct the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) in one respect. The former Minister produced the same version of our amendment on computer hacking but it was very cold comfort in a Bill that will give the Home Secretary the biggest ever centralisation of power over the police.
	Why were the Labour Government so unmoving on provisions that were eminently sensible and obvious to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives? With their complete centralisation of power, the Government seem to be getting tenser and tenser. Their grip on control is the result of fear. It has nothing to do with winning the arguments; it is fear of headlines. They need to legislate and interveneto be seen to be activerather than really getting to the bottom of a problem, or allowing the democratic processes of accountability and the police to do their job properly. There is a complete undermining of professional opinion and practice, which will spiral down and bring less effective and less local policing.
	I object strongly to the doublespeak that the measure is about localism and local policing. In fact, it will bring a sweeping centralisation of power, such as we have never seen.
	It is a great tragedy that we did not have time to debate the inspectorates. The changes to the prison inspectorate hold dangers for prisoners in future. That inspectorate casts a light where no light shines through its expertise and independence, both of which will be compromised in a joint inspectorate. The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, said that it would be a dilution of all the special protection for prisoners. Well trained prison inspectors can spot human rights abuses in a way that will not be possible if the inspectorates are merged. I am sorry that we did not have time to discuss a joint amendment to provide that prisons were not included. Prisoners need special arrangements to protect them.
	Sadly, we are now dependent on the other place to put into the Bill all the proposals that the Government would not acceptamendment after amendment. Although the debate has been informative and interesting, it has not been at all rewarding for Liberal Democrats. We tried to work with the Government but all our good work and good intentions were rejected, so it is with a heavy heart that I leave it to the other place to make amends.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr Jack Straw relating to Conventions (Joint Committee) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

Conventions (Joint Committee)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Lords Message [25th April] relating to Conventions be now considered.
	That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution;
	That, accepting the primacy of the House of Commons, a Select Committee of 11 Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on Conventions, to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament which affect the consideration of legislation, in particular:
	(A) the Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against measures included in the governing party's Manifesto;
	(B) conventions on secondary legislation;
	(C) the convention that Government business in the Lords should be considered in reasonable time;
	(D) conventions governing the exchange of amendments to legislation between the two Houses;
	and that the Committee should report by Friday 21st July 2006;
	That the Committee shall have power
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
	That Mr Russell Brown, Mr Wayne David, Mr George Howarth, Simon Hughes, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Andrew Miller, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mr John Spellar, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr Andrew Tyrie and Sir Nicholas Winterton be members of the Committee. [Mr. Byrne.]

Richard Shepherd: I am very interested in the motion, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not rise to say something about it. There are certain assumptions that I find puzzlingone is to try to reform the conventions between the two Houses of Parliament, without knowing what the shape, form, powers or responsibilities of the House of Lords will be. At the moment it is at a discount, because it is accountable to no one. If the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, which I understand are under discussion, suggest that it should be legitimised by being accountable to the electorate, the question of its being a subordinate House does not necessarily arise. It will be what it was historically: co-equalthe two parts of Parliament. I just make that point because it is very important. We are now trying to reform our constitution in the absence of any knowledge of what the House of Lords will be after the deliberations between the major parties. That is the first thing.
	The second thing is that the motionI recognise that it comes from the House of Lordsstates:
	the Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against measures included in the governing party's Manifesto.
	Every hon. Member who has heard the doctrine of the manifesto and served in the House for a long time knows indeed that it is a very thin concept for a variety of reasons, one of which is the nature of party manifestos. I must confessit often shocks people that, until the last election, I had never read my own party's manifesto from beginning to end, and I will give the House an indication of why.
	I travelled the Library for a few minutes to look at some of the past manifestos. In 1997, my party's manifesto, under the glorious title of You can be sureor somethingwas 56 pages long. The Labour party was more realistic; it recognised that, in fact, the electorate would probably grasp only five concepts, so it issued a pledge card. Make the Difference was the Liberal Democrats' manifesto63 pages. By 2001, we had learned something. Time for Common Sense was the Conservative manifesto46 pages. I could not find the Labour manifesto for that election, but I looked at Ambitions for Wales and I take it that it was identical, because the Scottish one was Ambitions for Scotland, and I guess that there was an Ambitions for England. That was 44 pages.
	By 2005, the Conservatives got down to It's Time For Action28 pages. The Labour party had made great advance with Britain forward not back, which it published as a paperback, retailing at 2.50. I cannot imagine the warehouses filled with that important document.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to Britain forward not back112 pages, and it is a right riveting read, I can assure the House, but does he accept that length does not necessary imply detail? Even a manifesto of that length will include something like:
	We will ensure that councils are organised in the most effective way...to deliver high-quality services.
	I support that, but what would a breach of that mean if the House of Lords rejected some local government legislation in a future Parliament? That is very difficult to establish.

Richard Shepherd: I am glad that the very point is reinforced by what the hon. Gentleman says, because of course a generalised statement is not a detailed policy, so the consent to the general proposition does not of itself mean consent to the interpretation of what that general proposition means. I always explain that to my constituents by saying that the Government proposeit is in our manifestoto build a new road to Birmingham; let us say, and we all say, Hurray!

David Taylor: A road out of Birmingham!

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is thinking of Scotland, I think.
	When the detailed Bill comes before the House, we discover that the road goes by way of Ipswich. Am I going to vote for a road that goes to Birmingham via Ipswich? I put it in such simplistic terms because the truth is that the doctrine of the mandate is a wearisome concept that cannot bind Members of Parliament from dutifully examining the detail of legislation and, if necessary, rejecting it. However, that is what is inscribed in the motionthe doctrine of the manifesto.

Simon Hughes: We have not yet heard from the new Leader of the House, but my understanding is that the job of the Committee will be to discover what it is thought that the conventions are and simply to offer that wisdom to both Houses of Parliament so that they can decide whether to keep them or change them. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not signed up to a convention that says that whatever the manifesto is, Parliament has to follow it, but surely an academic exercise cannot do too much harm.

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I notice that his name sits on the listhe is the only representative of the Liberal Democrats on it. I will leap to the part of the Order Paper that is of substance. It names a number of Members to sit on the distinguished Joint Committee. I notice that there are seven Members from the Labour party, three from the Conservative party and one from the Liberal Democrats. That is no longer representative of the many passions and interests that this House, of necessity, as a representative body, must have in the construction of our constitution. Where are the disparate souls from Scotland, Wales or the other parties? It looks to the observer like a carve-up between the three principal parties.

Angus MacNeil: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, which have been to the fore in cleaning up the scandals that are happening in the far corridor, are not on the Committee at all.

Richard Shepherd: I had hoped that I was not going to be the only one to speak in the debate. I hope that I have encouraged wider participation. The very fact that the motion was moved formally is an indication that it was expected that it would go through on the nod. However, I look to the Leader of the House, because I know of his concern. I am delighted to know that we have a man who is much respected in the House to make a case for the motion. We have a genuine Leader of the House of Commons and we should respect that. I certainly do and I wish him well in his great appointment. The Leader of the House was someone who represented not only the interests of the Government, but the interests of the House as a personality and an authority in its own right. I remember, as he will, John Biffen standing in the Chamber when guillotines were being proposed and saying, as the Leader of the House, that the routine guillotining of Bills would undoubtedly benefit the Governmentand he was absolutely right. However, we have to remember that today's Government may be tomorrow's Opposition.
	I hope that we will hear a little more about the thinking behind the motion. As it stands, we are examining the conventions against the background of a sudden lurch and rediscovered interest in reform of the House of Lords by the Prime Minister, no less, who ruled out an elected element. That is being discussed between the leaders of parties and not by any constitutional forum, as is the tradition of this House and other great constitutions.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend has just used the word examining the conventions. That word does not appear in the motion that was moved so briefly. Will he tell me whether he understands the word codifying to mean examining or to mean something more elaborateperhaps institutionalising or institutionalising in a code that is binding? That is an important element of the proposal before us.

Richard Shepherd: I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will give us his views on what that means.
	My intention in speaking to this seemingly innocuous motion is to put down markers. The matter is profoundly important.

Simon Hughes: I want to clarify an implication of what the hon. Gentleman generously said about my colleagues and me. We did not sign up to the division of members of the Committee because we wanted to argue in support of it. We were told that the Committee's composition would have to follow the balance of numbers in the House, which is why it will consist of seven Government Members, three Conservative Members, one Liberal Democrat Member and no others. We certainly retain, as he would, our unhappiness about the balance and representation. I understand that the same procedure is applied in the Lords, although the numbers are different because the balance is different.

Richard Shepherd: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman's response inasmuch as the House is the master. Amendments could have been tabled to address the composition of the Committee, but they have not been tabled. I came late to the motionthat is, yesterday. I would have tabled amendments on the names, but one has to ask people whether they are prepared to serve on Committees. The list of Committee members is ill-balanced and wrongly constructed. It can only have been carved up by Front Benchers, which must mean that the Liberal Democrats were complicit in the arrangement.

Simon Hughes: I can say, because I was consulted, that we did not agree to the division, but protested about it. I think that the motion was tabled yesterday, so the hon. Gentleman is right that amendments could have been tabled to it to open up the question of the composition. However, we certainly never voluntarily and happily assented to the division of numbers.

Richard Shepherd: But, with great respect, the Committee could be meaningful only with the Liberal Democrats' participation. If they had said that they could not participate on the Committee because of the paucity of representation from elements in the House, the Government would have rethought the list.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benchers have given the Committee legitimacy by participating?

Richard Shepherd: Much of the business of the House often goes through in a spirit of comity and, in fact, ignorance. The truth is that it is dependent on hon. Members to examine propositions that come before us. I have often made the point that we are all party men in one sense or another, but there are some matters, namely about the House itself, on which we have to stand up and say what we believe is appropriate or right. The motion is a typical example of the way in which business has been done in the modern age. It would previously have been a hotly-contested matter. It bemuses meI say this just as an observationthat the House of Lords would ever have agreed to such an arrangement, but it has, so we must accept that it wants such a Committee. It is thus incumbent on us to participate, but we should question vigorously why the House of Lords should enter into such an arrangement when it does not know what its future composition will be, or whether people such as myself will be satisfied that it is a legitimate check and balance on our constitutional arrangements.

John Bercow: I have read the proposed list of members of the Committee. It is august indeed, so no aspersion is cast on any individual who is proposed as a member. However, may I put to it to my hon. Friend that it would be helpful to know whether our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was asked to join the Committee? If so, did he decline, and if not, why not?

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend should be aware that I am entirely ignorant of the answer to that question. Perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will lay in front of us the reasoning for these matters.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend consider it wrong for a Parliament, at any one snapshot in time, to change conventions that have built up over many years?

Richard Shepherd: I talk in that spirit. The Leader of the House is the individual who will lay bare to us the scheme behind the motion. I took in great faith that which was said by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Although I am dubious and suspicious, I feel that this is merely a looking-at what the conventions are, and will not of itself cast anything in concrete.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to share with the House later, place in the Library and share with the hon. Gentleman correspondence that I have had with the Lord Chancellor on the status and the relationship of this Committee to other Government considerations. It is clear from a letter that I received from the Lord Chancellor that there was the intention to provide information and to advise both Houses. It is separate from the discussion about the future of the other place, but it was to be interrelated so that one could inform the other.

Richard Shepherd: That is what worries me. The Lord Chancellor has sent a shiver down my spine.

George Howarth: I have been named as a potential member of the Committee. My understanding is, on this occasion, the same as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). We are seeking to examine the conventions, but there is the issue of whether a consensus can emerge on what would be appropriate in any alteration to the conventions. It is not unreasonable that a Committee should proceed in such a way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man. I hope that he will understand that there is before us an attempt by reasonable people to ascertain whether we can find a way forward that will find consensus across both sides of the House.

Richard Shepherd: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman. I cast no aspersions on the names that have been listed. It is the process by which the names arrived on the Order Paper that worries me.
	It is said that reasonable men can find a consensus. I have fear at the very thought that reasonable menremember who we are dealing withwill inform us on how the House of Lords is shaped. I am not sure whether there is an interrelationship after what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey has said. If that is the way we are proceeding, I am alarmed. The constitutional settlement of what the House of Lords should be would normally enable that place to determine its own standing orders and its relationship with this place. That is what we understood as politicsreasonable men negotiating from a position of strength, not a neutered Second Chamber.

George Howarth: That is not my understanding. The composition of the other place is wholly without the terms of reference of the Joint Committee. Within the terms of reference is discussion about the arrangements between the two Houses in terms of legislation and what is acceptable and what is not. The hon. Gentleman is raising fears that are groundless.

Richard Shepherd: This is cart and horses. How can we rationally examine conventions on behalf of a body, or inform the composition of a body, that may take upon itself a view that is entirely different from a House that has not yet been reformed?

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will we have an opportunity to discuss these matters after the Leader of the House has had his bite of the cherry?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House is not winding up the debatehe is just starting.

Jack Straw: It is a great pleasure to speak to the motion, which I tabled with my right hon. and hon. Friends. It fulfils the commitment given by the Government in our manifesto last year to conduct
	a review...by a committee of both Houses
	to
	seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords.
	The focus of our debate is on the Joint Committee's terms of reference and its membership from the Commons, rather than the wider question of House of Lords reform, including the future composition of the upper House. However, to answer the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), our debate takes place in the context of the commitment by all three principal parties and some of the minority parties to look at the composition and the powers of the House of Lords. It was our judgment before the electionand it remains our judgmentthat as the issue of the composition and thus the powers of the Lords were to be the subject of live debate in this Parliament it was essential that we establish a baseline by reaching a common understanding of the existing balance of powers between the Lords and the Commons.
	I am talking not about the way in which the Lords manages itselfthat is a matter for their lordships and no one elsebut about the extent to which the House of Lords seeks to check and balance the powers of the Commons. Both Houses have a legitimate interest in the matter and, ultimately, it is for the elected Chamber to make decisions. If there had not been any debate about that, if there had not been any argument in the country and if political parties had not sought to put the issue on the national agenda there would be no need for the Joint Committee. However, those issues arise periodicallythey were live issues in the last Parliamentso there is cross-party determination to try to seek a consensus on the composition of the Lords. We therefore need prior agreement on powers, and we need a common understanding of the existing powers.
	I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for the great compliment that he paid me when he spoke about the role of the Leader of the House. He dismissed the doctrine of the manifestohe is entitled to his opinionbut he certainly wasted his time reading his party manifesto, because as soon as the ink was dry and the election was over, its author, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), announced that he did not agree with a word of it. That appeared to be his manifesto in his party's leadership campaign.

John Bercow: It was an extremely shrewd and sensible one.

Jack Straw: The manifesto drafted by the Leader of the Opposition should be torn up, but the hon. Gentleman's admission exposes the lack of judgment on the part of its author, behind whose banner he intends to stand.

William Cash: rose

Jack Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills may disagree with the doctrine of the manifesto, but it is the basis of our politics. He asked how the Committee will operate. The four conventions listed in the motion and other arrangements are already the subject of explanation in Erskine May and other authoritative textbooks.
	Up to now, however, there has not been a description of those conventions by Members of this House and the other place, or an attempt to secure that. The Committee that we establish may conclude that the conventions are impossible to describe in the words of the English language, but that would be astonishing. It is possible to describe the conventions and for the Committee to go on to make recommendations about the manner in which they might be codified. It is for the Committee to make recommendations, and for the House and the other place to dispose of the matter.
	The manner in which the conventions could be codified ranges from a codification in the body of the Committee's report, to a code that has been negotiated by both Houses and which we endorse in resolutions, through to its inclusion in Standing Orders or its enshrinement in law. That is a subsequent matter.

Angus MacNeil: I have high hopes of the Leader of the House, who strikes me as a man of integrity, from first impressions. Given the current scandalsa police investigation and two parliamentary inquiriessurely the most live issue, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is the convention on appointments? Before we do anything with the House of Lords, we must make sure that the system of appointments is beyond reproach. That is what the Committee should examine. We must ensure that transparent

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter has nothing to do with appointments. It is about the conventions of both Houses. I call the Leader of the House.

Jack Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Can he tell us, first, what he understands by the expression convention in the present context? Secondly, how does he justify the assertion in the message and the resolution that these are the key conventions or, indeed, conventions at all?

Jack Straw: As I learned when I was studying at A-level what was then quaintly described as British constitution and is now described as politics, our constitution is not unwritten, but it is not in a body of higher law that has supremacy over ordinary law of Parliament. In addition, some of the basic tenets of our constitution, such as the fact that it is Parliament rather than any other institution that has the power, are not prescribed in legislation at all, but they are written down. They are written down in Erskine May, as I say, and in many other authoritative textbooks and guidance, and everybody accepts them. They are perfectly capable of description.
	We do not often discuss whether Parliament, rather than, say, the Crown, should be the final authority because there is consensus on that. Ever since government in this country moved from being representative but undemocratic to representative and gradually democratic, there has been a tension between the Lords and the Commons. The balance of power has shifted, and each time it has done so new conventions have had to be developed to ensure the smooth passage of legislation.
	Again, those conventions are perfectly capable of being written down. They have to be understood, and the only way they can be understood is in words, rather than in emotions and sentiments. That is the purpose of the Committee. These are not the only conventions that govern the relationship between the Commons and the Lords. Most people are aware of the origins of the Salisbury-Addison convention, which raises the issue of the manifesto.
	The length of manifestos can be charted from the occasion in the late 1940s when that convention was agreed. Earlier ones, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks in the Library's collection of manifestos, were very short, including Labour party manifestos. The conventions arise from that, and the Committee can consider them. The motion states in particular, but it is by no means an exclusive list.

John Bercow: It will be to the right hon. Gentleman's enduring credit if, as I confidently expect, he, as a great House of Commons man, proves to be the House's representative in the Government, rather than merely the Government's representative in the House. However, he has already worried me: will he confirm that he does not envisage the Joint Committee as the first stage in a two-stage process to achieve the ultimate reform that is in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members? In other words, will he confirm that agreement in Committee on the conventions is not a necessary prerequisitea sine qua nonof progress thereafter?

Jack Straw: No one has suggested that unless the Committee reaches an agreement about the conventions, there will be no further opportunity for discussion on reform of the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with our proposals, and we have said that we will introduce a series of options and that there will be a free vote, in the light of which the House will judge whether it wants legislation to be introduced. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he smells a rat, but there is no rat to smell.

David Howarth: I welcome the Leader of the House to his new post and look forward to many happy Thursday mornings with him. May I take him back to his statement about how the conventions might be codified, which may have involved a slip of the tongue? He said that one option would be to put the conventions into statute, but my memory is that when the Lord Chancellor was asked in the Constitutional Affairs Committee how he could guarantee that such conventions would not then become the subject of judicial review, his answer was that they would not be in statute and that they would be in some other form.

Jack Straw: That will be a matter for the Committee. In my opinion, it would be a grave error to put any description of the convention into legislation, because that would embroil the higher courts in the powers of this House in relation to the other place, and it would also be unnecessary. I was asked to state how the conventions currently described in the textbooks could be described more formally, and I offered a range of alternatives. However, the matter is not for meI shall not serve in Committeebut for the Members of both Houses who will serve in Committee.

Tony Wright: I join in the universal welcome for my right hon. Friend's coming home and am sure that he will be a considerable Leader of the House. Conventions, by their nature, are things that change. At this moment, the relationship between this House and the House of Lords is changing, and it will change even further and faster when we have the promised second stage of House of Lords reform. I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a practical difficulty in trying to freeze the definition of conventions at a moment in time, when they will necessarily be changed by what we do on a wider front.

Jack Straw: The question whether conventions are frozen relates to the question of the status of the Committee's recommendations and conclusions. The House might take the view that it should simply receive the report and for the time being not decide to elevate the description of the conventions into a document that has any greater status than that. My hon. Friend has made the case for setting a baseline. All hon. Members understand that if the composition of the other place is to change to any significant degreein particular, by moving towards an elected elementit is bound to affect the balance of power between the two Houses. It is therefore as well for everybody to understand that we cannot have a discussion about composition without also acknowledging the crucial inter-relationship of powers. We might as well have an agreement about where we are starting from and what the common understanding is before we move on.
	There are practical reasons for doing that. For example, as I know from my time as Home Secretary, Labour Members complain that the House of Lords gives us a tougher time than the Conservatives when we are in government. Conservative Members might cast their minds back to the time when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary. It is fair to say that there were, at least qualitatively, quite a number of occasions when he was given a hard time too. Mature reflection by this Committee might be helpful.
	I am very grateful to all hon. Members who will serve on the Committee for the work that they are about to undertake, with the leave of this House. Plenty of Committee reports are received and no particular view is taken of them; it depends on the quality of the work that has been put in. My view is that in this case the quality will be high.

Peter Bone: The Leader of the House is making a logical case for postponing this until we know about the reform of the other place. Can he explain why we have to do it now?

Jack Straw: What I was trying to doI obviously failed comprehensivelywas to make a logical case for dealing with this issue before we got on to composition. Let me try to explain the point again, because it should be one on which there is agreement across the Chamber.
	Each party is committed to seeking some changes in the composition of the House. For us, it is to make it more representative; for the Conservatives, it is to see whether there is a consensus on an elected element. I apologise to the Liberal Democrats for not having memorised their manifesto commitment. I dare say that, as ever, it seeks to outbid the two parties that have any prospect of governmentbut 'twas ever thus. With all due deference to the drafters of the Conservative and Labour manifestos, they are always couched in rather general termsthey raise expectations, but do not do much more than that. One of the good things about our manifesto was that it took the view that we had to sit down and describe where we were before we moved on to the next stage, and see whether there was broad agreement about the nature of these conventionsparticularly, as the motion makes clear, in relation to legislation.
	The crucial role of the Lords, as everybody knows, especially anybody who has ever been a Minister, is to revise Bills that come from this place. I personally think that in general their lordships do a very good job. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) will recall that after I had accepted a shedload of amendments on the Freedom of Information Bill, I commented that although that could sometimes be irritating, it was one of many Bills that had been improved by the process of revision in this place and in the other place. I say that in all seriousness. Anybody who has ever experienced drafting legislation in government knows that, because the pace is fast, no Minister can, in practice, go through every detail of it. It is therefore absurd for any Minister to suggest that measures are written on tablets of stone and that there should be no change to them.
	We acceptand I have always regarded as valuablethe role of the other place. However, I believe that all parties agree that this House must have primacy, not only because of the doctrine of the manifesto, but because this is the elected Chamber and the means whereby the view of the people is expressed. Somehow, there must be a way of squaring the circle between the other place's legitimate powers to revise legislation and ensuring that this House has primacy. That has been the purpose over the years of the development of conventions, especially in relation to legislation. Any change to the composition of the other place will inevitably change its appetite for its role in legislation and therefore, in practice, its sense of its power.
	Our judgment is that it is a good idea to start by setting out the baseline. I hope that that answersI have tried to do sothe point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).

Tony Baldry: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), I am something of a spectator at this debate, because I came into the Chamber to present a petition. I hope that I might be able to do that before midnight. However, the Leader of House, beinglike me and many othersa student of law, acknowledges that conventions evolve.
	Surely the conventions between an elected House and a fundamentally unelected House will be different from those between an elected House and another largely elected House at the other end of the building. The exercise that the Leader of the House and the Committee are about to undertake is totally academic. It will be overturned as soon as we know the composition of the other place.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I am trying to make: if we are to move to a wholly or partially elected House its powers are bound to change to some extent, and we need to know where we are at the moment. To answer the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), of course there will be the debate that we promised in our manifesto on considering options for the future of the House of Lords. I hope that those debates focus seriously on the role that we want the House of Lords to play, and that we will then seek a consensus on a Chamber that is based on that role, not the other way round. If we are to do that, we might as well first ascertain whether we can agree about the role in relation to this Chamber. That is the purpose of the Committee. It would be bad, and would not serve our constituents' interests, if during the subsequent debate we spent the whole time arguing about our different understanding of the current role. That could easily result from leaving things as they are and not having the Committee.

Simon Hughes: rose

Angus MacNeil: rose

David Taylor: rose

Jack Straw: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), then to the other hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).

Simon Hughes: Let me try to summarise what appeared to us to be the sensible propositionwhich, I believe, the Government support. There should be a three-stage process. First, both Houses should ascertain whether they can agree about the current conventions. Secondly, we should consider whether it is sensible to codify them, and if so, in what way. Thirdly, having done that, we can have a realistic debate about what changes should be made to the House of Lords. We all have our views on that, but at least we will approach it on the maximum common basis of knowledge and agreement.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman puts the point better than I, and I am grateful to him. He is right, and that is a good reason for his inclusion on the Committee.

Angus MacNeil: May I expand on the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) by saying that we are dealing with components herealmost like the components of a car? We are tweaking about with the components despite the fact that we might be buying a new car in a year or two. Surely we should look at the bigger picture before concentrating on the smaller details. Na h-Eileanan an Iar is my constituency, by the way.

Jack Straw: The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has already addressed that point, and so have I. I do not regard the issue of the powers of the House of Lords in relation to this place as a small detail.

David Taylor: The Leader of the House suggested a moment ago that there was intra-Chamber consensus on the Salisbury-Addison convention on manifesto commitments. He saidI paraphrase slightlythat any manifesto was a blend of a snapshot of the present landscape, a broad aspirational sweep, and legislative nuts and bolts. This is a quote from page 61 of our 2005 manifesto:
	Given the pace of change within medical services we will ensure that it is possible for the NHS to change the way in which it organises its services as quickly as possible.
	Into which of those three categories does that fall

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House needs to respond to that question. Although this debate is completely open-ended, I have to say that it is getting rather circular.

Jack Straw: I will talk to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about that question in the Tea Room, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Andrew Miller: Further to the point raised by the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), may I tell my right hon. Friend that the reason why I agreed to serve on this Committee was my sheer frustration at the way in which the House had dealt with the process the last time round? I chose to protest by voting for abolition last time, because I thought that it was absurd to have a discussion such as this before the House had had a reasoned debate on what the powers of the House of Lords are now and what we would like them to be. When we have discussed those issues, it will make sense to discuss the composition of the other place.

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: Architects say that form should follow function, and that should apply equally when we are designing our Government. We need to get the functions right first. I sat on the last Joint Committee, and I was not particularly keen on the idea of sitting on another one on this matter. We failed with regard to the issues of function and of role, because we all too easily said, Oh yes, we all agree about that.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend puts his point very elegantly. I hope that we shall learn from what happened in the last Parliament. If we do not address the issue of function first, by describing what the House of Lords is for, grave errors will be made when we come to consider the issue of form.

Andrew Turner: rose

Jack Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to make some progress?
	I want to deal with three final points that might help to answer some of the questions that hon. Members have asked. With the leave of the House, I shall seek to respond at the end of the debate to any further issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked about the political balance of the Committee. He expressed surprise that its formula for here was 7:3:1, which departs slightly from the traditional formula for Commons-only Committees of 6:3:2. The 7:3:1 formula has been adopted because this will be a Joint Committee. Overall, there will be 11 Labour Members out of a total of 22, so they will not even be in the majority. Of that number, seven Labour Members will be from this place and four from the House of Lords. For the Conservatives, there will be six altogether: three from this place and three from the other place. For the Liberals, there will be one from this place and two from the Lords. The balance will be made up by two Cross-Benchers.
	The second issueit has not been raised so far but it might be, so let me put it on the recordis the time that has elapsed to establish the Committee. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) might be about to raise that. I know that everyone in the Chamber would have preferred the Committee to have been set up earlier, but I gather that that was not possible. We spent a lot of time consulting other parties and, within the confines of our manifesto commitment, the terms of reference that we debate tonight have been agreed with the other parties. The leaders of the other parties voted for those terms of reference and the motion in the debate in the other place on 25 April.
	The final pointto anticipate an issueis the timetable from now. The proposed date for the Joint Committee to report is 21 July, four days before we rise for the summer recess, which, including the Whitsun recess, is around 10 weeks away. That is a short, but not unreasonable, deadline. Some Members have drawn a comparison, as did Members of the other place, with the Joint Committee of 2002, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) served. That Committee was appointed in July 2002 and reported in December. However, the period in between included the summer recessaround two monthsand the state opening of Parliament, which accounts for some of the additional time given. Furthermore, the remit of the 2002 Committee was far wider than that of the one that we are debating today.

Theresa May: I was indeed going to refer to the 21 July deadline in the motion. The Leader of the House says that that is 10 weeks away. As I understand it, however, the motion will be subject to a deferred Division, so technically, the Committee will not be set up until next week. Therefore, it will be set up only a week before the Whitsun recess, and is unlikely to meet until after that recess. That significantly reduces the time.

Jack Straw: If the motion is agreed tonight, it is agreed. If it is objected to, however, the Division will be deferred. I hope very much, however, that the House will agree to accept it tonight. Deferred voting is a separate issue, but I understand, although I had absolutely zero to do with the idea of deferred voting one way or the other, that it is for the convenience of the House. If representations are made about changing that, I will certainly consider them. Although I accept that 10 weeks is not all that long, if the Committee comes to the view that it needs more time, we can return to the House to seek an extensionit will not be my intention to stand in the way of such a request from the Committee.
	This has turned out to be a livelier and more interesting debate than I had anticipated, but it shows the appetite for this issue

John Bercow: Insatiable.

Jack Straw: I hope that it is not quite insatiable; otherwise there will never be any change. Meanwhile, for the reasons that I have explained, and that others have elaborated, I hope that the motion will enjoy unanimous support from the House, and I commend it.

Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to what, as the Leader of the House has said, has become a somewhat livelier and perhaps longer debate than many had expected, with contributions from a significant number of hon. Members.
	Before I deal with the substance of the issue, may I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position as Leader of the House? I also welcome his comments yesterday in response to Leader of the House's questions about his understanding and recognition of his responsibility to this House, and about how he intends to serve in his position in the best interests of this House. All Members of the House will welcome that.
	There is, of course, a precedent for a Foreign Secretary becoming a distinguished Leader of the Housethe late Robin Cook.

Jack Straw: And Geoffrey Howe.

Theresa May: Yes, I was not in the House at that time. There is more than one precedent, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will follow in those steps and serve with distinction.
	The motion arises from a pledge in the Labour party manifesto. We have already had quite a debate about manifestos and what the terms of manifestos mean. Last year's Labour party manifesto stated that the Government would
	seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords,
	hence the motion setting up the Joint Committee to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions and setting out the particular conventions that the Committee is intended to consider.
	The Leader of the House referred to the time that it has taken to set up the Committee. It has indeed taken nearly a year. I understand that discussions between the Government and other parties began last summer, and that terms of reference were agreed some time ago. In the meantime, the Lord Chancellor has spoken of establishing a Committee on House of Lords reform. An idea that was due to be presented to this House at a time when House of Lords reform was not being actively considered has now been presented precisely when such reform is being actively considered. That obviously gives rise to questions about why it is being presented at this stage, and about its interaction with the debates on House of Lords reform.
	On the basis that it represented a fulfilment of a manifesto commitment by the Labour party and on the basis of discussions between the parties, we supported the motion in the other place. I intend to support this motion, but, as has been made clear by Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, we do not accept any reduction in the powers of the House of Lords. It is on that basis that we have agreed to the establishment of the Committee. I therefore think it important to set out exactly what we understand it will do.
	There has been some interaction between the Leader of the House and hon. Members, and indeed between hon. Members, on the Committee's role and on what its role should be. It is important to note that the terms of reference do not even ask it to codify the conventions of the House of Lords: they ask it to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions relating to the relationship between the two Houses, which is one step back from setting out the conventions in any form.

Chris Bryant: I have long held that codification is desirable, because it is difficult to establish the precise relationship between the two Houses other than on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement signed in a club many decades ago. Some constitutional lawyers, however, believe that codification is impossible. What is the right hon. Lady's personal view?

Theresa May: My personal view is that it is doubtful whether it will be able to codify in a way that would retain the flexibility that I consider necessary. I shall deal with that point shortly, because I think that we should take it into account when examining the rather tricky role that the Committee will have to play.
	The Committee is not being asked to decide whether certain conventions should be scrapped or amended, or indeed what the powers of the two Houses should be. The motion simply asks it to consider the practicality of codifying its role. It is, however, understandable that some Members havein the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)smelled a rat, because the commitment in the Labour party manifesto on which the establishment of the Committee is based goes further. Having stated
	we will seek agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords,
	it continues:
	and developing alternative forms of scrutiny that complement rather than replicate those of the Commons; the review should also explore how the Upper Chamber might offer a better route for public engagement in scrutiny and policy-making. We will legislate to place reasonable limits on the time Bills spend in the second chamberno longer than 60 sitting days for most Bills.
	As part of the process of modernisation, we will remove the remaining hereditary peers and allow a free vote on the composition of the House.
	So the manifesto commitment on which the motion is based goes considerably further than the motion.

Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend may have observed that three of the Members who intervened on the Leader of the Housemembers of his own partyclearly believed that one of the terms of reference was to discuss what should happen in the future. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth)who is no longer presentreferred to discussing what was acceptable and what was not.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the implication of the intervention from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was that, according to his understanding of the Committee's role, it could go further than the terms set out in the motion. My point is that we have accepted this Committee on the basis of the motion, which sets it a very specific task. I will discuss later some of the problems of codificationan issue raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Simon Hughes: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I am very clear that this Committee will deal simply with stage one, assessment, and stage two, consideration of whether we can codify. Its remit does not extend to thinking about what we do with the Lords after that.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point.

John Bercow: I confess that I disapprove of the whole basis on which Select Committees of this House are currently constituteda view that I last expressed in the main debate on the composition of Select Committees on 13 July last year. Does my right hon. Friend know on what basis this Committee was constituted and at what point approaches were made? More specifically, did those approached know what the terms of the motion by which they would effectively be bound were to be?

Theresa May: I am afraid that I am unable to enlighten my hon. Friend on the question of exactly when particular individuals were approached and asked whether they would be prepared to participate in the Committee. My understanding, however, is that when approached, it was made clear to them exactly what the Committee was about and what its job would be. The Government and other parties had discussed the terms of reference before the motion came before the House, so they were known and understood before people were asked to participate in the Committee.

Andrew Miller: Just to put at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), I was familiar last week with the broad terms of reference, although not the specific wording. Nothing in the wording gives me cause for concern about my role as I understood it.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining his own experience.

Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: Yes, and then I will make some progress.

Simon Hughes: I am simply trying to assist the debate. There was much discussion of this issue after the general election, but no agreement was reached. I do not think that the wording was shown to anybody in the Opposition parties until a couple of weeks agobefore this matter was first debated in the House of Lords.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
	I want to move beyond the wording of the motion and on to the issues that lie behind this project, the first of which is the problem of definition and codification. There is a danger that codification could remove the flexible relationship between the two Houses that enables better governance. Indeed, in some cases, such a relationship enables the Government to pass business that would be difficult to get through if the codification was as suggested in the Labour party manifesto.
	Let us consider the example of the planning and compulsory purchase legislation that, at one stage, the Government were on the verge of losing because of the incompetence of the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Agreements were reached in the House of Lords on progressing that legislation in such a way as to ensure its enactment. If the rules had been absolute, that would not have been possible, which is one reason why I said earlier to the hon. Member for Rhondda that it is very difficult to codify, while at the same time providing the necessary flexibility in the relationship between the two Houses, in the interest of getting legislation through Parliament.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made several good points with great passion, as he always does, especially on issues relating to the constitution and Parliament. He talked about the problem of defining manifesto commitments, and he was right. It is one of the greatest problems that the Committee will face when considering the Salisbury-Addison convention. One example is the recent debate on the Identity Cards Act 2006, in which the Labour party's commitment to voluntary identity cards was challenged by the Opposition, because we believed that the manner in which they would be introduced effectively meant that they would be compulsorybecause of the increasing requirement to hold a passport. If an identity card becomes automatic on having a passport, holding the identity card effectively becomes compulsory. That was a debate on the definitions of voluntary and compulsory in this House, and it shows how difficult it will be to define manifesto commitments, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made clear by quoting his party's manifesto. Manifestos are often drawn very wide, so it is difficult for anyone to say exactly what was meant in terms of legislation. The danger is that codification will mean that decisions as to what such manifesto commitments mean are not taken by elected representatives in this House, but are left to lawyers, who will have to find a way through the problems caused by trying to codify the conventions. The Committee will face real difficulties in attempting such codification.
	Why has this issue come up now, juxtaposed as it is with the whole question of House of Lords reform, including the intervention by Lord Falconer? The problem is that it is a circular argument. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that form should follow function, but the problem is that function may be determined by form in relation to the House of Lords. The functions that one would anticipate an elected House undertaking would be very different from the sort of functions that one would anticipate an unelected House undertaking. Therefore, if one identified the function and then fitted the form to it, the function might change once the form had been decided. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will say that one has to break the circular argument at some point, but in this instance the function of the House of Lords will be determined by the form of the House of Lords.

Chris Bryant: Surely the point is that this is about the very important matter of how power is distributed within government in Britain. The only way to get the architecture right is by deciding what function Britain needs the House of Lords to perform, to add to the functions of this House, in terms of scrutinising legislation and the Executive. One has to start with function, not form.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has just made my point very well for me.
	I raised the issue of timing, as have other hon. Members, and some of them may be concerned at the impact that the Committee will have on the debate about House of Lords reformwhether it will speed that up. In fact, it may be a way for the Government to kick House of Lords reform further into the long grassdespite the comments by the Lord Chancellorby saying that it cannot take place until the Committee has met, deliberated and reported. Indeed, there was a slight hint of that in one or two of the comments by the Leader of the House, when he referred to the need to set out the conventions before considering reform.
	A number of questions arise and I hope that the Leader of the House will answer them when he winds up. How will Lord Falconer's proposal for talks on House of Lords reform relate to the work of the Joint Committee? Will nothing happen until the Committee has reported, and who will Chair the relevant Cabinet Committees?

Jack Straw: Moi.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman uses a foreign word in a way that I thought was not permitted in this Chamber, but he confirms that he will chair those Committees.
	The question about the timetable was raised, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making it clear that, if more time is needed, he will be prepared to come to the House to seek an extension.

Peter Bone: The motion specifies a date of 21 July for the Committee to report. If it is discussed on the Monday of the following week, 76 days will have passed before the House can scrutinise it. Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter is being rushed through?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is well known for his concern about the fact that the House does not sit in the summer recess. His point about timing is valid. One concern is that the Committee will not have enough time to deliberate properly, and another is that, even if the deliberations are rushed through to meet the 21 July deadline, neither House will be able to consider them until the autumn.
	Lady Amos told the House of Lords that it will be up to the Committee, when it has met and decided what it will look at, to come back to both Houses and seek an extension if it thinks that the time scale is too short. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the motion does not mean that the 21 July report cannot be an interim report? If that is so, the Committee could report on that date, which might not be the end of its deliberations.
	We supported the establishment of this Committee because it was a Government manifesto commitment. It will look at the practicality of codifying the conventions, and will not try to amend them or reduce the power of the House of Lords. However, I hope that the Leader of the House will answer one final question. If the Committee decides that it is not practical to codify the conventions and does not produce recommendations for improving the present arrangements, will the Government undertake not to produce a unilateral Bill constraining the powers of the Lords? That might achieve the same end by another means, but it would lead to confrontation with the House of Lords and with some Members of this House.
	As I have said, we do not want the power of the House of Lords to be reduced, and we do not want the Committee to be a back-door route to that end. I trust that the Leader of the House will confirm that is not the Government's intention either.

Tony Wright: If I had been presented with this proposition a year or two ago, I would have opposed it instinctively. I would have made a speech saying that it was inconceivable that the conventional arrangements of the two Houses could be considered without looking at the larger context of what should be done about the Houses' broader composition and relationship.

Richard Shepherd: That would have been an excellent speech.

Tony Wright: It would, and probably even better than the short one that I am about to deliver, but things have changed. I hope that the House agrees with me that we must not repeat statements in respect of House of Lords reform that have already been repeated endlessly. On these occasions, we tend to make the same type of speech, saying the same type of thing, putting forward our favourite nostrums on reform, with the effect that we never achieve reform of any kind.

Angus MacNeil: I was a member of the public when the House last debated this subject, but there seems to be a degree of myopia. This Parliament is not the only bicameral Parliament in the world. Rather than reinvent the wheel or tie ourselves up in endless detail, would not it be better to look at best practice throughout the world and learn from it?

Tony Wright: We should certainly look at best practice throughout the world, while bearing in mind our distinctive history and the distinctive nature of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive in this country.
	I do not want to make the speech that I have made many times before, and I do not want to hear other Members make the same speeches that they have made many times before, which makes me well disposed towards any initiative that will move things on. One initiative could be to establish what the current conventions are, for reasons that the Leader of the House has given, although as I pointed out, the picture is changing.
	The current conventionsat least, the central one: the Salisbury-Addison conventionwere forged during the post-war Labour Government, who had a huge popular majority while the Conservative party had a huge entrenched majority in the House of Lords, based on the hereditary peerage. We have only to remember that context to realise that simply to codify those conventions now would not tell us much about the relationship that should exist between the two Houses in very altered circumstances.
	There are difficulties about the practicality of carrying out the exercise, even though it would be extremely useful to have it done. That is a conundrum that the Committee will have to face. It is clear to me what the conventions ought to be, so perhaps I can save the Committee a little time, if it considers my suggestion practicable.
	In essence, there are three conventions. The first is that this House should, in the last resort, get its way. The second is that the Government should be entitled to get their business in reasonable time. The third is that the House of Lords should have proper opportunity to perform its function of scrutiny and revision. That is what governs the relationship between the two Houses, and it does so from the perspective that there is no rivalry between the two Chambers; the task is to make the Chambers work in a complementary fashion to make Parliament itself more effective.
	People talk constantly about the primacy of the Commons; in fact, it is Parliament that is sovereign. We have to strengthen and emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament. That is the real challenge that faces us.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he is slightly wrong. One of the elements in the primacy of this place is that Finance Bills can be considered only here, which is important. Secondly, the Government can be formed only by virtue of a majority in this Chamber. No matter how many times another Chamber might choose to have a vote of confidence, it would never be able to dislodge the Government. That is the essence of the primacy of this Chamber.

Tony Wright: I give way to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)my neighbour and good friendis right to remind us about the supremacy or the primacy of Parliament, but people such as me believe that that is so only because it is an expression of the sovereignty of the people. If the other Chamber is elected, it will be accountable and it, too, will be an expression of the people's view. Primacy between Chambers is a matter of negotiation between two legitimate bodies. I start from that constitutional principle, which is clearly at odds with the hon. Gentleman's constitutional principle.

Tony Wright: Of course, the point about constitutional principles is that they are endlessly at issue with one another. The point that I want to make is that there is a reputable case for doing almost anything about the House of Lords. There is a reputable case for electing it, for electing it indirectly, for appointing it or for leaving it is its semi-reformed state. What there is not a reputable case for is not having the intellectual and political energy to think what its role might be in a strengthened Parliament and then to ensure that it performs that role.
	We are having this discussion at a time when the relationship between the two Houses is changing quite rapidly. I suspect that there are different agendas at work. I can quite understand why a Government might feel that they would like a second chamber that is rather more pliant than the current one. I suspect that they may wantit is a perfectly proper thing for a Government to wantto find a way to codify conventions that will enable them to get their business more conveniently.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has opened up the whole debate about the future of the second chamber. Many people will disagree with him on many of the obvious distinctions between the two Houses. Even if we retain the view recently expressed by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that only this House can determine whether the Government stay in office and vote them out or keep them in, it does not mean to say that the other place, in whatever new form, cannot have pretty strong legislative powers and, if elected, arguably similar legislative powers to those of this Chamber.

Tony Wright: It is possible to emphasise the final primacy of this House, while recognising that the other House has a crucial complementary role in strengthening scrutiny function as a whole in relation to the Executive. I fear that many of the arguments that we have heard have suggested that there is zero-sum game at work, but there is not. I hope that one of the consequences of re-entering the argument will be to see it in a rather more useful way than we have sometimes seen it in the recent past.

John Bercow: There is often an underlying assumption in these debates that a legislative stalemate between the two Houses is necessarily a bad thing, to be avoided if at all possible, whereas I believe that, in many situations, it is a positive good to be celebrated. May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in referring as he did to functions of scrutiny and review but with assumption of primacy for this Chamber in the end, it is important not to exclude the importance of delay as a positive good, not to avoid an ultimate decision, but precisely to slow up the process for further such review and scrutiny?

Tony Wright: I agree very much with that, and I want to draw the House's attention to some work that has just been done on the current activity of the House of Lords. We talk about it a rather general way. Some very interesting work has just been done by the constitution unit at University college on exactly what the House of Lords did during 2005. I shall read out the unit's conclusion. It has gone through every Division and every aspect of the relationship between the two Houses, and it says:
	The new dynamic of the House of Lords may alter British politics in fundamental ways and prove difficult to reverse. Despite continuing dissatisfaction with the undemocratic basis of the chamber, this appears to suit the public. Survey evidence released by the Constitution Unit in December 2005 showed that two-thirds of the public believed the Lords was justified in voting down measures that were unpopular or on which Labour MPs had rebelled. These views were shared by a majority of Labour voters, and even of Labour MPs. Unless this changes, governments of either colour may find it hard to suppress the will of the House of Lords.
	The unit says one more thing, based on its work and analysis:
	The strengthening of the second chamber has often been presented as a threat to the elected House of Commons. However, events this year showed it might instead lead to a strengthening of Parliament as a whole.
	I put it to the Leader of the House that that is the crucial consideration. It would be profoundly a ill advised approach to the business of a Committee to look at the conventions in the spirit of asking whether we can somehow put the House of Lords back in its box again, because, in its funny, semi-reformed state, it has come out of its box feeling more confident and legitimatein a way that the public like. In fact, in many respects, they like it rather more than they like us.
	It would be politically difficult and not sensible to proceed with an agenda to tame the House of Lords. We need to put the two Houses together on a common task. That is the job now. The worst outcome would be to produce a second Chamber that was, in any sense, a replica of the first. We want neither a replica, nor a rival of this Chamber, but a genuine complement to it in exercising the task of scrutiny, which we know to be deficient in this House.
	Having said at the beginning that I was not going to give Members my favourite nostrums, I think that there would be some profit to the House in looking again at a report that a number of us produced on a cross-party basis last year. Those involved included the late Robin Cookthe immensely distinguished Leader of the House at the timeand the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). We produced a report called Reforming the Lords: Breaking the Deadlock. I am not necessarily recommending the conclusions and practical recommendations of that report, but I urge the House to look at the arguments that brought us to those conclusions. We argued that we needed a House that had enough legitimacy to be taken seriously, but enough independence to be justified in being taken seriouslya House that, as I said, is neither a rival, nor a replica of this House, but which joins it in the task of scrutiny. I hope that, in supporting the establishment of the Committee, we see things in that context and that there is not what I fear would be an ill conceived and ultimately ill fated attempt to neuter the second Chamber.

David Heath: Any thoughts that this might be a brief or perfunctory debate have been adequately dispelled already. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), with whom I agree on many of these matters. I want to challenge the Leader of the House on two details of what he had to say. I think that he made an uncharacteristic slip of the tongue when he introduced the motion in his name and that of his right hon. Friends. Of course, he has no right hon. Friends in this instance. He was introducing the motion as Leader of the Househis new role. He is speaking on behalf of not the Government, not the House. That is an important distinction and I know that he understands it.
	Secondly, I want to chide the Right hon. Gentleman about the fact that he appears not to have been sufficiently assiduous in studying Liberal Democrat manifestos over recent years and was unable to quote from them. I know that he has had limited reading time in his new role, but I am sure that he will rectify that omission. If he is not able to do so, I refer him to the Parliament Act 1911 and its preamble. I do not think that we have largely changed our view about reform of the upper House. The tragedy is that it has taken so long for something to be done about it.
	It is no secret that we were extremely reluctant to enter into the arrangements before us today on this particular Joint Committee. We were worried when the idea was first suggested by the Lord President of the Council because, at that time, it was proposed in isolation. There was no suggestion that we would make further progress on reform of the upper House, or that the Committee would form part of an integrated approach on the whole question of the relationship between the Houses. It was predicated on an assertion by the Prime Minister in an unguarded moment that he wished to clip the wings of the Lords. He was expressing irritation, which is frequently shared by Ministers and Government Back Benchers, that the House of Lords occasionally does not do exactly what the Government wish it to do when considering Bills.
	I say hallelujah to the fact that the House of Lords does not do what the Government want it to do because even in its present illegitimate form, it has a substantial amount of not only expertise, but, more importantly, independence from the Executive. That enables it to take a view on matters put before it and to express a view that often hugely improves legislation. Over the past few years, I have dealt with countless Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs Bills on which the views of the Lords, as a revising Chamber, have been invaluable when we have tried to avoid the worst excesses of sloppy legislation that is not only internally discordant, but has a profound effect on the liberties of this country's citizens. The view that formed the basis of the original proposal for the Committee, which was that there was somehow a need to reduce the power of the Lords because it was an inconvenience to the Government, is one that we wish to resist.
	An even worse suggestion was that the Government at the time wished not only to reduce the powers of the Lords, but, simultaneously, to complete their initial process of reform by removing the remaining hereditaries. I hold no candle whatsoever for the retention of the hereditaries in the Lords. People should not be Members of the House of Lords by accident of birth. I am convinced that whether they are elected by their colleagues or not, they do not have a legitimate part in a modern legislature. However, the effect of what the Government appeared to be proposing would have been first to reduce the powers of the Lords and, secondly, to make it exactly the fully appointed Chamber that this House had rejected conclusivelyso much for the primacy of the House of Commons.

Angus MacNeil: The problem is not only the accident of birth, but the fortune of the wallet. For as long as that possibility remains, the legitimacy, and thus decency, of the House of Lords will always be up for question.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why the option of an appointed House would not improve the legitimacy of the Lords one whit. It is also why many of us are convincedthis is certainly my party's positionthat an elected, or predominantly elected, House must be the right way forward.
	Having said that the present composition and certainly the composition envisaged, I think, by elements within the Government are illegitimate, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, the House of Lords, even in its unreformed state, has utility. That is why it is appreciated by the public. That is not because they believe that its composition is justified or is arrived at by an appropriate means. The public see it doing its job in holding the Executive to account in a way that sometimes this place is incapable of doing.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman seems to have a rather glowing understanding of what their Lordships do these days. Some of us would point to some of the legislation that the Government have brought forward, which has been extremely progressivefor example, on lesbian and gay rights. The Lords, in their reactionary nature, have not seen fit to allow that legislation to go forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that sometimes the democratic process can enlighten while sometimes, perhaps, it is subject to the overpowering influence of the Whips.

David Heath: Were the Upper House to be accountable to an electorate, I think that it would take a different view. However, reaction is not something that is exclusive to the Upper House. There are powers of reaction within this House as well.
	This was not a proposal in which we wanted to take part. We made it plain to the Government that they had to think again. We made it plain also that, despite our feeling that we would in no circumstances support the hereditary principle, we were not prepared to countenance yet again partial reform that did not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for the House of Lords. If there is a responsibility for the delay in this matter, it is us. We take responsibility for and, indeed, pride in delaying this matter.
	What changed everything was the scandal of cash for peerage. In a road to Damascus conversion the Prime Minister suddenly realised that it was time to re-enter the list in terms of House of Lords reform. The order went out to the Lord Chancellor that he was to create a Committee to that effect. Then we had the prospect of two Committees working on entirely different matters. We suspected that one would report very quickly and that the other would take a very long time to reach a conclusion.
	Our proposition was simple. It was that the two Committees needed to be linked for exactly the reasons that have been adduced by several Members. We cannot divorce form and function in the House of Lords. We cannot separate out the way in which we arrive at a composition for the House of Lords and what its function within Parliament will be. Nor can we divorce either of those considerations from the way in which we do our business in this place. Reform of the House of Commons is just as important as reform of the House of Lords.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman is either being very nave or generous to a man who irons only the front of his shirts. Does he agree that the intervention of the Lord Chancellor was intended to be not constructive but diversionary?

David Heath: I am not sure that I understand the reference to ironing habits. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman undertakes that duty himself. However, I understand what he is saying about the Lord Chancellor's Committee being something that was intended to take the heat off the Government at a time of great stress. It was our view that it would not reach a conclusion.
	We have been arguing behind the scenes and in another place that we want to make substantive progress. We believe that the Committee can inform that process but should not pre-empt it. It certainly should not be seen as a way of introducing partial reform that is a substitute for the basic reform that we believe to be necessary. There are the conventions of the House, and I think that the Salisbury convention is on the back of history. It was a cosy arrangement between the Conservative and Labour partiesour party was not a party to it, nor were other partiesand it is does not have any relevance to politics in this country. The day that we have justiciable manifesto is the day that we finally reach the asylum. Judges should not assume responsibility to interpret manifestosif they did so, the proposal for compulsory ID cards would have been an instructive test case.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people do not think that the Salisbury convention is a convention at all? Indeed, we are indirectly debating the future form of the House of Lords, and if a significant proportion of its Members were elected, as he and I want, that would completely change the nature of the proposal. With an elected House of Lords, the Salisbury convention and the credibility of the manifesto would fall.

David Heath: I agree, and I shall come on to the changes to the composition of the House of Lords and their implications.
	We made three points when we reluctantly agreed to serve on the Committee. First, there is a necessary linkage between its work and that of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, as one informs the other. Secondly, the Joint Committee is non-deliberative. Naturally, it will reach conclusions, but they are not binding on anyone, and they do not formulate anything that the House or, indeed, the Government are required to accept. It does not define the relationship between the Houses, as we do not know what their nature will be in future. Thirdly, we sought a fairer composition of the Committee, but we have failed to achieve that, given the affiliation of members from the Commons. I have complete confidence in my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)I am glad that he represents both parts of his constituencywho provides us with a substantial presence on the Committee. I am worried, however, that the Committee is not representative of the wider House, and that Government Members who were nominated to serve on it have a particular perspective on Lords reform.

Mark Tami: It is not for the hon. Gentleman to say that people who hold different views from his should not be allowed to express them in Committee or anywhere else.

David Heath: I was arguing for a diversity of views in Committee.  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) wishes to continue our dialogue, I am happy to give way to him, but if he is satisfied with my response, perhaps he will be quiet and allow me to continue.

Mark Tami: I have the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is true that the hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate, so he has a vested interest in this debate.

David Heath: As I said, the composition of the Committee would, in a perfect world, represent all shades of opinion on both sides of the House. Inevitably, it fails to do so, given its size.
	To return to the key point, if the Committee is successful, it will provide information for the House and the other place about codification. I worry about the word codification. What does it mean? Does it mean statute? I hope not. The matter should not be bound by statute. If it is bound by statute, I would argue for much wider statutesa proper written constitution in statute form, a proposition which I do not believe the Government are prepared to accept.
	At the very least, however, I hope we arrive at a concordatthat is the present term of art between the two Houseswhich will be derived from the future form and functions of the two Houses. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Those who argue vigorously for the primacy of this House and also argue vigorously for a largely or wholly elected element at the other end of the Corridor are deluding themselves. The two are not entirely compatible. We can say that this House has reserved competences, which may include the formation of the Government from its number and as a result of its composition. We may argue that at the end of the day this House should win an argument between the two Houses, but we should understand that if we have an elected or predominantly elected second chamber, it will have a legitimacy that it does not currently have.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. We will stay here all night if I take every intervention.
	There is a huge spread of opinion in the House and at the other end of the Corridor about what should happen. That ranges from those who are out-and-out unicameralists, which, as has been said, is a perfectly respectable positionthere are legislatures that work on a unicameral basis, although I do not share that viewto those who would like to turn the clock back and return to an hereditary peerage, which I do not think is a way forward for a modern country. Between those two views, there is a wide range of others.
	We need to establish where in this House, because this House has legitimacy, there is a centre of gravity for reform. We could have done that the last time we debated the matter, if it had not been for the interference of the usual channels on both sides of the Chamber. The House demonstrated a clear preference for a largely elected second chamber, which was deliberately obscured by process. When we are asked the question again, we must have a much clearer view about what functions are properly reserved to this House, what functions are properly carried out by another place, how the two interrelate and how we establish legitimacy for both Houses.
	If we can do that by defining complementary roles that are not identical, we will strengthen Parliament in the way that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase suggested. It is not, as has been said, a zero-sum game. We can improve the way that this House and the other House work, in order better to serve the country. The one way in which we will not do that is by allowing the Executive to grab yet more power at the expense of the Legislature. We must oppose that and reverse it.

William Cash: I begin with a quotation from the introduction to Erskine May, which is well worth considering:
	At the very highest level, there is much in the observation that if the United Kingdom has in any sense a constitution and that constitution is capable of restraining an elected dictatorship, the standing orders and the practice of the two Houses, shaped over the centuries by changing political pressures, and since 1884 described in May's  Treatise, are an important part of it.
	At the beginning of the introduction, with regard to codification, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) touched on, Erskine May states:
	Those elements of parliamentary procedure which have been codified in standing orders ormore rarelystatute law tend to be relatively modern and easy to track..
	Those statutes include the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and others, such as the Oaths Act 1978 and the Royal Assent Act 1967.
	There is another aspect of the elective dictatorship that has not been touched on, yet it is fundamental to the question of what those conventions, which is how they can be described, includenamely, the Whip system. In practice, the elective dictatorship comes about through the convention of the Whip system. In a debate on the reform of the House of Lords some years ago, I asked whether the Whip system had got out of control. It is because of that point that there is a more justifiable case for the House of Lords periodically to put its foot down. It is perfectly apparent that, because of the Whip system and Standing Orders, we end up not considering legislation properly in this House, which confers legitimacy on the House of Lords.
	Parliament consists of two Houses, which affects the consideration of legislation. It is extremely important to remember that the House of Lords is, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, part of the parliamentary process, although it has acquired different functions. The two Houses cannot be separated, although they have evolved in different ways over timethe beneficial intrusion of democracy in the mid-19th century made a fundamental difference.
	If there were to be a new House of Lords with a significant elected element, it would not be possible to apply the Salisbury-Addison conventioneven if it is a conventionbecause the Lords would acquire legitimacy for its decisions on the basis that the voters had expressed their view. I wonder whether the reference to the Salisbury-Addison convention should be abandoned in the context of considering the practicality of codifying what have been described as the key conventions. I doubt whether those conventions are the key conventions, because I could mention many other conventionsfor example, the convention of comity is an important aspect of the relationship between the two Houses.
	For those who are interested in what some would regard as a fairly abstruse subject, the issue of conventions has been at the heart of many of the biggest constitutional crises that this Parliament has experienced over the past several hundred years. That question arose in the context of the Canada Act 1982, with which I happened to be involved because I advised Quebec on that matter in a professional capacity. The ultimate decision taken by the Supreme Court of Canada turned on the application of conventions in this House, because under the British North America Act 1867 the lexis of the constitution of Canada was not in Canada, because it was resident here. Those considering the case had to consider the application of the Statute of Westminster, and in doing so were governed by the conventions of this House. The question of what are the key conventions between the two Houses is a matter of very great importance. I am not satisfied that the assertion that they are those in the motion is at all accurate.
	My next question concerns the meaning of codification. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome alluded to that a few moments ago. The Whip system has a direct relevance to the House of Lords. After all, in respect of comity and the practical application of relationships between the two Houses, we know, if we have been in the shadow Cabinet or on the Back Benches, that discussions take place between the Whips and the leaders' offices of both Houses to decide the extent to which, for example, the ping-pong between them is going to continue. That is governed by conventions, and it can be incredibly important. It is also governed by the conventional manner in which the Whip system and the usual channels operate, either within the House or between the two Houses.
	I am interested in how codification would apply in relation to Standing Orders if that becomes the basis on which decisions are taken and it is not just left to float off into the ether. According to the sources I have read, in 1866, when the great battle took place in this House over home rule, Lord Randolph Churchill and two or three others spent the entire latter part of the Session on the one question of whether the Speaker's rules should, by consensus and by a carve-up between the Front Benches, be transferred from the Speaker to the Executive. A very distinguished former Clerk of the House of Commons goes so far as to allege that when that was codified into Standing Orders, it reduced the power of the House of Commons to such a low point that until it was reversed there would never be the kind of authority that the House of Commons ought to have by virtue of its elective system. People refer to the elective dictatorship, but it is not that at all. It is a dictatorship by the Whip system enforced by various methods such as cajoling and various other thingssometimes a bit of a threat here or there. I have experienced some of that in my time over the years, and resisted and sometimes rejected it.
	We should be very careful about what codification is likely to mean. The attempt to have a discussion, which is embedded in the motion and the debate, about whether there is a practical way of progressing, has some sense. However, I am apprehensive about where it would be likely to lead if the consequence was, by the back door, to put a straitjacket on the way in which, for example, an elected House of Lords could operate, or to undermine the freedom of debate and the democratic basis on which this House operates.
	I can think of at least one matter that was most emphatically not in the governing party's manifestothe European constitution. The question of whether there should or could be a referendum was determined by the Prime Minister's saying that it caused no fundamental change. The Leader of the House and I spent the best part of a year debating that. Ultimately, the Prime Minister decided that it meant fundamental change after allperhaps to some extent because of my argumentsto primacy. We must be careful when we decide what affects the conventions because many of the most important matters that are discussed in the House do not appear in manifestos.
	Many of the most difficult issues that arise in the Chamber and Parliament as a whole depend on the flexibility that the conventions afford. The problem with other constitutional arrangements, even in the United States, is that they cannot move easily with the times because they operate on a fixed set of rules that have been codified. Our advantage is that we can be more organic and flexible and respond to the practical requirements of the time.
	I am dubious and concerned about the proposal. I appreciate that it states,
	to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions
	but the case for that is not made on the basis of the necessity of maintaining flexibility.

Peter Bone: There is no point in setting up a Committee if its purpose is to codify what is best left uncodified, as a convention.

William Cash: My hon. Friend summarises the casethat is exactly my anxiety. I smell a rat. I believe that the motion and the arrangements are trying to reduce flexibility, just as, in 1886, the Speakerfoolishly, if I may say so, with all respect to Chairallowed the Speaker's rules to be taken away and given to the Executive. In those days, there were only about six Speaker's rules. We now have approximately 170 Standing Orders. Almost every time a new Standing Order has been imposed through the Whip system, it has been at the expense of hon. Members and their ability to debate freely.
	I am extremely concerned and I would be pleased if, by one means or another, it was decided that the arrangement should not proceed.

Andrew Turner: When this debate began, I smelled a rat. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that he smelled a rat, but the Leader of the House assured him that there was no rat. I have to say that the more I hear of this debate, the more I am convinced that there is a rat, although it might be a different rat from the one that I originally smelled.
	Everything hingesas so many of these matters doon what the motion means. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) drew to our attention the terms of reference of the proposed Committee, which are
	to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament,
	so I shall not go over that territory again. I asked earlier what was meant by the word codifying. I am now beginning to understand that it means more than simply writing down the conventions. It means writing them down as though they would acquire some force as a result of being written down. That seems to be the interpretation that many hon. Members on both sides are putting on the motion. I started by thinking that, while it would not be particularly constructive to approve the Committee, it would not be particularly damaging to do so either. However, I am now beginning to think that it might be damaging to approve the Committee, particularly if it takes its terms of reference as being to codify rather than merely to consider the practicality of codifying.
	The original rat that I smelled involved the development of the code in a way that the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth)who is no longer in his placedescribed as discussing what was acceptable and what was not. That interpretation of the motion was shared by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) when he said that he hoped to change the arrangements. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) then said something rather similar, with which the Leader of the House agreed. There was some confusion, certainly on the part of Labour Back Benchers, about the intention behind the motion. Perhaps that was because they had read their manifesto rather than the motion or, more likely, because they had read neither and simply accepted the assurances given to them by the Whipsif, indeed, they needed any assurances.
	So rat No. 1 involves the question of whether there is to be an interpretation and a further development of the conventions. Rat No. 2a more recent and more lively rat, it has to be saidinvolves the question of whether codifying implies giving some kind of force to the conventions.
	A Committee of politicians is singularly ill suited to doing anything other than arguing about how things should develop. It is almost inconceivable that a group of right hon. and hon. Members of this House and noble Lords from another place will simply sit down and write down in an academic way what the present position is. There are two reasons for that. First, I do not think that there is much agreement on what the present position is. That is certainly true of some of the claimed key conventions set out on the Order Paper. Secondly, politicians much prefer mission creep. In fact, it is almost part of our nature to try to drag the debate into the areas in which we are interested, rather than the areas in which the Government, the Opposition Front Bench or evendare I say it?the House of Lords are interested. I am convinced that the rat of developing or trying to shape the future of the conventions is alive and well too; it might not be as smelly a rat as it was at the beginning, but that is because it is alive and well, not because it is not there.
	If we want a memorial of the existing codes, it would be far better to leave it to an academic to write down what the codes are, obtain evidence and set out lots of footnotesI am sure that an academic would follow me. The only problem is that it would take far longer than two months for an academic to do that work. That is the other reason why I do not believe that this work can be done effectively, even by a full-time Committee sitting for two months. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), there are a huge number of conventions and something like 1,100 years of history behind the development of Parliament and the relationships between its two Houses.
	As for whether the conventions exist, the Salisbury-Addison convention was of a different time, and as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it was between two parties that were in very different positions in the two Houses. Even the Government have moved from time to time from the strict interpretation of the Salisbury convention, as we have seen not only with the Identity Cards Bills but, more significantly, with the smoking-related elements of the Health Bill. Under the Salisbury convention, the House of Lords was entitled to throw out the smoking-related elements of the Bill on the basis that they were not what the Government were elected to introduce. The manifesto said one thing, and the Government said something else. The Government do not adhere to the Salisbury convention; more and more frequently, they submit what I suspect is the rather one-sided convention that the Government are entitled to get their business through, or that the elected House is entitled to have its decision upheld in another place.
	It is fair to say that my noble Friends on the Front Bench in the House of Lords have been careful to stick with the letter of the Salisbury convention, although I can sometimes detect a reluctance to do so. As far as I can tell, however, Liberal Democrat Members of the House of Lords are no longer signed up to the Salisbury convention, if they ever were. I do not see a reason to sign up to a convention between a hereditary House and an elected House when the elected House and the other House are in the exact form proposed by the Government. We have two Houses in a form that the Government, certainly at the time of inventionwhich in the case of the House of Lords was not long agoapproved of. Therefore, how can they conceivably argue that it is not doing the job that it was set up to do? I suspect that they did not know what job it was set up to do, and that they merely disagreed with its composition.
	In other words, in the early years of this Government, form did not follow function at all; form followed prejudice. Perhaps the prejudice was justifiable, and perhaps not. It seems to me, however, that we cannot decide on the future form of the House of Lords without agreeing what its function should be. I think that its function is pretty much right at the moment, although I would like to propose some improvements. However, most of those improvements would not be upheldand even the current functions would not be improvedby reducing the appointed element and increasing the elected element of that House. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome accepted the fact that a House cannot scrutinise well in detail if it consists of people like us. That is not our mtier.
	Another key convention mentioned in the motion is the convention on secondary legislation, but that convention is under fire. I see no reason why a House of Lords in the form in which the Government created it should not have exactly the same ability to reject secondary legislation as we do. Indeed, I do not see why the House of Lords should not amend secondary legislation. Perhaps there are good reasons and perhaps there are not, but the House of Lords could perfectly well say, If we are not allowed to amend it, we will reject it. If not the House of Lords in its current form, the House of Lords in a future form could wield over the Government the big stick of rejecting all secondary legislation that it wished to see not rejected but amended. That would be the only way of forcing the Government to introduce revised secondary legislation in a form that the House of Lords would find acceptable. The convention will change if the composition of the House of Lords changes. Indeed, it could change without a change in the composition of the House of Lords should noble Lords wish that to happen.
	I will say no more about the existing conventions, but there is an absence of conventions, and a deliberatemay I saycasting aside of conventions that worries me no end. Perhaps the Committee, if established, could examine the history of other conventions that have now disappeared.

William Cash: Not only are there many conventions that are buried but nonetheless important, extant and necessary; there are the works of Jennings, Dicey and, in particular, Geoffrey Marshall. Sadly, Geoffrey Marshall died a few years ago. I think it would benefit the Leader of the House to read those works carefully as he proceeds with this matter.

Andrew Turner: I suspect that it would benefit all of us to read those worksexcept those who have clearly read them already. But the convention that concerns me most, and which I hope the Committee will examine if it is established, is the convention that changes in the electoral system should be subject to a Speaker's Conference before being presented to either House.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is presenting the House with a powerful argument, in which he is revealing all the detail that will be involved if the Committee is set upbut how can we set it up when it must report by 21 July this year? That would be nonsensical.

Andrew Turner: If my speech is doing anything, it is persuading meif no one elsethat it is impossible for the task be undertaken successfully by 21 July 2006. The Committee will scrape the surface, but it will certainly not delve deep enough to reveal all the conventions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone referred, examine their origins and establish whether they continue to exist.
	Like so many proposals that emerge from the vague words of a manifesto, the motion should have been examined in more detail before being presented to the House. I fear that the Committee will not find it possible to do what it is being asked to do in the time available. I fear that it will suffer from mission creep. I fear that it will be confused, as Labour Members have been, about whether form should follow function or function should follow form. Such work could better be done by an academic than by politicians, and interesting though it may well be, and necessary though it certainly is, it will need to be done again if the House of Lords is further reformed or reconstituted.

David Howarth: As an academic and a politician, I rise with some trepidation after the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). The debate has centred on two termscodify and primacyand I want to say a few words about each.
	The hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Isle of Wight have already pointed out some of the dangers of codificationthat it can arrest development and be a way of reducing the power of an organisation or body to develop its own capabilities and long-term powers. There is another danger. French lawyers, who are very familiar with the idea of codification, have a saying, which, translated as crudely as possible, is: To codify is to modify. In other words, whenever one tries to codify practices, general principles, ideas andabove allarguments, one takes away the essence of those various attempts to get at principles and ways of behaving, reducing them to rules and statements that start with the words Whenever or If. When a codification is attempted, what comes out at the other end is very different from what went in. My fear is that this attempt to codify will change and diminish the existing situation, and that it will be used to arrest future development.
	I want to spend slightly more timethough not much moreon the word primacy. The debate began by considering that topic, but we seemed to have moved off it to some degree. The motion before us contains the phrase
	accepting the primacy of the House of Commons.
	The key question is: what does that mean and why is it so, if it is so? When there is ping-pong between this House and the other Housewhen a Bill goes backward and forward in different forms between the twoMinisters repeatedly say that, in the end, the elected House is entitled to have its way. That is the usual way of expressing the principle of primacy, but as Members have said, if the other House became an elected House, that version of primacy would cease to have any meaning. There would be no force behind it, and it would cease to be a reason for this House to have primacy. Indeed, if the other House were elected according to a different, more proportional electoral system, one could even argue that it would have the advantage in terms of democratic legitimacy.
	The present situation is very peculiar, in that this House is accountable to the electorate but is far from being representative. The other House is accidentally representative, but it is not accountable. If the other House were also accountable, it would have the advantage over this one.
	So if election is not the reason for primacy, what is? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) expressed earlier a view that the Lord Chancellor also put to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that primacy is the power of this House to make and break Governments: that if a Government were to lose their majority in this Houseto lose its confidencethey would no longer be entitled to be the Government. However, if that situation occurred in the House of Lords, no such consequence would follow: the Government would continue to exist. The question then is what follows for the relationship between this House and the other place if that is the basis of primacy. What sort of relationship between the two Houses, especially when legislation is discussed, follows from the function of this House being to make or break Governments?
	If we are to say that this House's function is to be expressed in terms of making or breaking Governments, nothing follows for the function of the House of Lords in terms of legislation. The argument about primacy has come to a dead end. If the other House were elected and had democratic legitimacy, its right to discuss and modify legislation would be just as great as the right of this House to do so. All it would mean is that the two Houses had different functions.
	Indeed, it could be arguedmy hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was on the cusp of making this point and other hon. Members have alluded to itthat one of the problems of this House is that because the Government's existence depends on the confidence of this House, it is very poor at scrutinising and modifying legislation. A defeat for the Government in this HouseI have seen a few, but not very many since being elected last yearthreatens their existence. That is why the conventionanother interesting onedeveloped that, to avoid the immediate consequence of the resignation of the Government, a vote of confidence had to be called after a serious defeat, whatever that might mean. In any case, there is a relationship between the legislative function of this House and the confidence that the Government need to remain in existence.

William Cash: Is not taxation another source of primacy? There are many reasons why it is asserted that this House has primacy, but one prime reason is the right to tax. However, the right to tax comes from the fact of election. Democracy, as in the case of no taxation without representation, is the key factor.

David Howarth: That is right and the same point applies to the mandate theory. That theory works because of election, and if the House of Lords were elected, it would have the same sort of legitimacy on that point. The fact that there might be a conflict between the two Houses on their different electoral mandates could not automatically be resolved in favour of this House. In those circumstances, there would be a conflict of democratic mandate, with each House having its own. It follows that it is impossible to derive a meaning for primacy from the relationship between the two Houses as it will be when the House of Lords is predominantly elected that leaves it even close to the situation that we have now. That is the fundamental problem with the motion. It is equivocal about the meaning of primacy.
	For some hon. Members, primacy means the situation we have now, based on the difference between an elected and a non-elected House. For others, it means primacy regardless of the end of that situation in the future. The former assertion is legitimate, but the latter lacks any reason.

Jack Straw: With the leave of the House, I shall attempt to sum up the debate and respond to the points raised.
	First, this intelligent and thoughtful discussion has reminded me of what I missed during my otherwise fascinating five years as Foreign Secretary. Nothing is more important than this subject, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) was right to say that any significant change towards election in the other place would be bound to change its sense of power. Although getting elected is the easy bitgetting re-elected is always more difficultany such change would alter the other place's relationship to this House. House of Lords reform is not a discrete matter that is separate from what happens in this House or from our democratic arrangements as a whole. It would change altogether the nature of governance and democracy in this country.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: No, as I want to respond to the debate rather than take further questions.
	I am not opposed to changing this country's governing arrangementsfar from it, but the House should be aware of the enormity of the task. I know that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and all those attending this debate are aware of that, but I am not sure that the same is true of everyone who has taken a position on the matter but who has not been present today.
	Secondly, one party has now been in government for the relatively long time of nine years. I am returning to a debate like this after an interval of five years, but I had a domestic portfolio in the first Parliament of this Labour Government. I am struck by how Labour and Conservative Members see our constitutional arrangements almost entirely through the prism of whether they are in government or opposition. That is an obvious danger.
	I hope that I may be able to bring to these debates the experience that I gained through serving in opposition for 18 years. I am glad now that I had that experience, although I did not entirely enjoy acquiring it. In the dog days of the 1980s or the depressing days of the early 1990s, there was a real tendency among hon. Members to think that the constitution should serve only the party to which they belonged. We must think about what best serves effective and accountable governmentwith a small gin this country.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge made a very interesting contribution and knows a lot about France. In that connection, I emphasise that we must make sure that the rush to secure more accountability through more democracy in the other place does not make governing through this House almost impossible for whichever party is in power.
	I turn now to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said. I absolutely accept that this is not a zero-sum matter. I am not giving away any official secret, as I have said this often: other Ministers may have found the experience comfortable enough, but I found it irritating to have to come back and deal with amendments that I thought had been sorted out either here or in the other place. But that is not a bad thing; in aggregate, it is a good thing because it keeps Ministers on their toes. Moreover, as there are no more than six or seven Ministers in a Department, but thousands of officials, being the subject of such scrutiny enables one to keep control of the Department on behalf of Government and Parliament, so it is in no sense a zero sumnor is additional scrutiny from the other place. However, everybody must understand that just as in the end it is for Ministers to propose but for Parliament to dispose, Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that government continues, so there has to be a balance.
	I want to deal with some of the specific points that were raised.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not because, although I love him to bits, I know that he has an unrivalled ability to keep the House for a long time, which does not necessarily lead to the approbation of his colleagues.
	I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone[ Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was very effective in holding me to account when I was Home Secretary, which was good for me, although it did not always feel like that.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead asked whether the Committee could produce an interim report. My understanding is that it cannot make an interim report to the House without first coming back to the two Houses to change the 21 July deadline. It could then produce an interim report if it wanted to do so. We have debated the timetable and I hope that members of the Committee will be able to complete their work by the 21 July deadline, but if that is not possible the Chair of the Committee can come to see me and I shall do my best to respond positively to the Committee's requests. I cannot say more than that.
	The right hon. Lady's second point was about Lord Falconer's proposals for consensus. As the House knows, I have had responsibility for House of Lords reform and other easy matters, including party funding, only since last Friday, so Members will forgive me if I take a deep breath before looking at my noble Friend's proposals. I will take the opportunity to consult representatives of Opposition parties about what they feel to be the appropriate way forward before making decisions about how we progress the commitments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said that we needed a second Chamber that was neither a replica nor a rival. I agree, but the devil will be in finding a Chamber that complements the role of this place. The hon. Member for Cambridge suggested that it would not be a bad idea if the second Chamber were seen as a rival, but that would have serious problems for governance.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) used the word concordat, which was probably right. Governance will work better, and always has worked better, when there is consensus about the balance about powers between each end. We must have that, whatever the composition and powers of the other place; otherwise, there really would be gridlock. On this occasion, it is for the Committee to consider whether it is possible to describe that concordatthat consensuswithout turning it into the straitjacket of a Napoleonic code. If we get a draft recommendation that begins with the words whereas and if, we know that the task is impossible.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) may be suspicious about many things, but I would not be suspicious about this one. We have a manifesto commitment. This is a very tricky but very important issue. We must take it stage by stage. Perhaps I should not have set the hare running on how to codify the issue. I was simply describing, for the sake of completeness, what form codification could take. Of course, I will consider any recommendation from the Committee with very great care. Subject to that, the idea of legislating for the balance of powers between the two Houses would probably be the worst option, rather than the best.
	I hope that I have responded to the points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
	As for the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I was about to say that he turned up like a bad penny, when I was dealing with Europe and followed me around on Europe. I finally ensured that the Government served up what he was demanding in respect of Europea referendum on the EU constitutionand no sooner was that over and we dealt with that, he turns up here. I wonder whether the Bruges group and all the other flat-earth societies to which he belongs on the issue of Europe had any idea whatsoever that he was, figuratively speaking, in bed with the French, with the Qubecois. I also wonder how the devil William Cash  Co.a very distinguished firm of lawyerswas instructed by the Qubecois, rather than other perhaps more obvious firms; but perhaps for that, we can wait until the next debate. Meanwhile, I recommend the motion to the House.
	 Question put

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
	Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday next, pursuant to Standing Order No.41A (Deferred divisions).

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

co-operation on asylum policy and practice

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6520/06 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication on strengthened practical cooperation: New structures, new approaches: improving the quality of decision making in the common European asylum system; notes that this forms part of the package of measures creating a Common European Asylum System, and supports the Government's position that it is desirable to promote operational co-operation between Member States, with the aim of improving the efficiency and quality of Member States' asylum systems. [Mr. Heppell.]
	 Question  agreed to.

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That Mr Geoffrey Hoon and Liz Blackman be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr Jack Straw and Paddy Tipping be added. [Mr. Heppell.]
	Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Premier Aggregates Ltd

Tony Baldry: I have pleasure in presenting to the House a petition signed by almost every resident of the villages of Finmere and Mixbury in north Oxfordshirevillages of some substantial size.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of Finmere and Mixbury and the surrounding area,
	Declares that they are frustrated and concerned at the numerous, repeated and continued apparent breaches of planning control by Premier Aggregates Limited, owners and operators of the Finmere Quarry and Landfill facility. The Petitioners feel that Premier Aggregates appear to flout consistently many of the planning conditions imposed upon them by Oxfordshire County Council as Planning Authority and they are now seeking to appeal against an enforcement order issued by Oxfordshire County Council relating to overtipping of infill material. The County Council seem unable to resolve this situation, which affects the amenity of the villages and residents of Finmere and Mixbury and the surrounding areas.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take the necessary action to ensure that Planning Authorities, such as Oxfordshire County Council, have effective controls that they can use on operators such as Premier Aggregates Limited.
	 To lie upon the Table.

MATTHEW MARSDEN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Heppell.]

Mark Tami: Matthew Marsden, a two-year-old boy from Buckley, Flintshire, tragically drowned while on a family holiday in August 2004. He drowned after falling into a duck pond that was just 18 in deep at Greenacres holiday caravan park near Porthmadog. The coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death. He described the death as a tragic accident and said it was natural for youngsters to show interest in water. He did not back calls from safety campaigners to fill in ponds on public sites such at this.
	That was not the first incident at the caravan park. A risk assessment was carried out in September 2003, but only after a four-year-old boy was saved from drowning in the same pond. People should clearly be aware of the dangers of water, but we need to take the appropriate action. I am not advocating a ban on all water features, which are part of the attraction of a park or leisure centre, but they need to be safe. Lessons have to be learned and action taken. We all know that water holds a particular fascination for young childrenparticularly under the age of five. Whether the water is held in a garden pond, a rainwater butt, a paddling pool or a bucket, a young child will always tend to want to investigate.
	Between 1 January 1993 and December 2003, 342 children under the age of 15 drowned in small bodies of water, canals, lakes, rivers and swimming pools in the UK. That figure does not include those who drowned in the bath at home or at coastal locations such as the beach. The highest single number of fatalities occurred among those aged about two. At that stage, toddlers have increased mobility, but their stability and co-ordination are still undeveloped, so they tend not to be able to help themselves if they get into difficulties. Some 111 children under the age of five have drowned during the last decade. That is within the space of a few minutes of the supervising adult being distracted for any particular reason.
	We need to readdress what constitutes a water hazard or danger. As adults, we tend to think of deep ponds, lakes, rivers, swimming pools and even the sea, but the facts tell us that young children can drown in as little as 1 in or 2 in of water. Wherever water can collect is therefore a potential hazard or danger. As children do not learn the concept of danger until they are about four or five, the onus is therefore on us to take appropriate action.
	The Marsden family know that they cannot turn the clock back, but they do not want their tragic loss to be another headline in the papers, forgotten the next day. They want lessons to be learned from it and action to be taken so that no other parents suffer as they have suffered and continue to suffer. Many would find that approach difficult to follow, but it is their hope and desire that nobody else will go through what they have experienced.
	The coroner's view, in essence, is that nobody was to blame, but, ultimately, we are all responsible because we have done little to protect children from water, or, at best, minimise the risk. Accidents will always happen, but our job and duty must ultimately be to minimise that risk. As a parent, I know that it is nearly impossible for any parent to supervise a young child 100 per cent. of the time, but action can be taken to lessen the risks, particularly in the case of water.
	Let me go into a bit of detail. There is no specific legislation regarding pond safety of this type. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents provides safety advice about ponds in schools, which are common-sense guidelines on how to supervise children near and around water and which apply to parents, teachers and guardians. Again, we are presuming that particularly young children have that common sense in the first place. But what of legislation for water safety? The Health and Safety Commission, which deals with the workplace environment, is the only relevant body on this issue. Its regulations are enforced by either the Health and Safety Executive, or local authorities, depending on the type of workplace. Although the Health and Safety Executive has not produced specific legislation or guidance on ponds in public places, the following legislation applies to leisure parks.
	Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974 places requirements on employers with regard to members of the public using workplace facilities. The section only sets down a goalit is not specific. Subsection (1) states:
	It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
	Likewise, subsection (2) covers the same area with respect to self-employed persons. Subsection (3) states:
	In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking ... as might affect their health or safety.
	Further to that, an employer or self-employed person has a legal duty to complete a risk assessment. Risk assessments are a legal requirement under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Regulation 3 stipulates:
	Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of ... (a) the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and ... (b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.
	The approved code of practice goes on to state:
	This regulation requires all employers and self-employed people to assess the risks to workers and any others who may be affected by their work or business. This will enable them to identify the measures they need to take to comply with health and safety law. All employers should carry out a systematic general examination of the effect of their undertaking, their work activities and the condition of the premises. Those who employ five or more employees should record the significant findings of that risk assessment.
	A risk assessment is carried out to identify the risks to health and safety to any person arising out of, or in connection with, work or the conduct of their undertaking. It should identify how the risks arise and how they impact on those affected. This information is needed to make decisions on how to manage those risks so that the decisions are made in an informed, rational and structured manner, and the action taken is proportionate.
	A risk assessment should usually involve identifying the hazards present in any working environment or arising out of commercial activities and work activities, and evaluating the extent of the risks involved, taking into account existing precautions and their effectiveness. In this approved code of practice ... (a) a hazard is something with the potential to cause harm (this can include articles, substances, plant or machines, methods of work, the working environment and other aspects of work organisation) ... (b) a risk is the likelihood of potential harm from that hazard being realised. The extent of the risk will depend on ... the likelihood of that harm occurring; ... the potential severity of that harm, i.e. of any resultant injury or adverse health effect; and ... the population which might be affected by the hazard, i.e. the number of people who might be exposed.
	I also have guidelines from another source: Reservoirs and HSW Act: Inspections Policy. It relates specifically to reservoirs, but the control measures cited may be of some use. With regard to public safety, it says that a risk assessment is required to take into account high-risk areas and the likely actions of persons using a reservoir. It says that fencing or natural barriers may be needed to discourage people from approaching deep water. It says that fishing platforms may be provided to direct anglers away from areas where they could slip into the water and suggests considering the provision of rescue aids within the risk assessment. For example, if the reservoir is visited only by water company employees, they should take rescue aids such as throw-lines to the site.
	Where members of the public regularly gain access to these sites, rescue aids must be located at suitable points. Warning signs should be placed at suitable locationsfor example, entry pathways and high-risk areas.
	Do we think that existing legislation is good enough for public amenities? Should there be more specific regulation for public premises? Health and Safety Executive legislation is aimed more at the protection of employees and may be inadequate for public safety. Good employers understand the dangers that are present on their premises and enforce risk assessments, but in understanding the dangers of water the public are possibly overlooked by others. After all, employees are more likely to be aware of the dangers than members of the public.
	For instance, the pond at the caravan park where the Marsdens had their tragic accident had conducted a risk assessment only after an earlier incident at the same pond. We need also to consider that caravan parks tend to attract families with young children. Why does the legislation that governs them not take that fact into consideration? If there were a swimming pool on the site, we would expect at least some safety procedures to be in place. We recognise a pool to be a hazard, although I accept that that is another area where the law is vague. That surprises me. It is another area where I would like to see legislation tightened.
	We do not consider that the same requirements are necessary for ponds despite the fact that they could pose the same threat to visitors, particularly the young. In the majority of cases, I would like to see ponds filled in. If they are not, there should be a requirement to ensure that fences are put in place to prevent accidents. In the Marsden case, the pond did have a small fence, but it was not high enough and therefore did not have any effect. If anything, it could be argued that it had a negative effect. Safety can definitely be improved by the provision of adequate fencing. This is not a measure that would place huge expense on park owners, but it may well save lives.
	If we have ponds in our gardens, we may well need to take similar measures, if we believe that they could be accessed by children. We should not lose sight of the fact that many deaths have occurred in just such ponds.
	I would like to see a requirement on park owners to alert all guests to water hazards or any other hazards that are present on the site. Specific water legislation to cover amenities of this sort, such as a caravan park, would make it clear to all concerned that there is a need to take proportionate action to reduce the risk of open water on their premises. Current legislation does not do this, and I believe that it would help all concernedoperators and the publicin diminishing the risk posed by water, especially to young children, if such legislation were in place.
	There is another issue that has an effect on water safety. In carrying out research on this subject, I found it difficult to ascertain who exactly had responsibility for water safety. The water safety forum provided a framework for action, but I found it confusing when trying to ascertain who dealt with what aspect of water safety. The WSF does not deal with such inquiries.
	When pursuing my inquiries on behalf of the Marsdens, I had delays in responses to letters as they were pushed from one department to another. Responsibilities for inland water are spread across several Government Departments and agencies. It was difficult for me to ascertain whether the incident was dealt with by the local authority, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as it was then, or the Health and Safety Executive, with the Department for Work and Pensions being the enforcing authority. That can lead to further anguish for bereaved parents.
	We need to increase the public awareness programme into water safety for young children. Most parents are aware of all the dangers posed to children, but perhaps the message about water is not pushed hard enough. We instil in our children the dangers posed by traffic on our roads. We tell them about the dangers of getting lost and those of wandering off. Perhaps we face these dangers every day. More emphasis should be given to the dangers of water, particularly in schools.
	We all have a responsibility for children's safety. While the onus is on parents and guardians to mind children and teach them the dangers of water, reforms could be introduced to reduce the chances of death by drowning in certain circumstances. New regulations on water safety in public places would concentrate the owner's mind, and encourage them to carry out risk assessments and take appropriate action. A central Government contact point to deal with all water safety issues would enable inquiries for information to be dealt with quickly and effectively. A co-ordinated national education campaign aimed at parents and guardians could advise them of the dangers to children of water and of their responsibilities.
	In conclusion, I accept that dangers to our children will always exist, but we must do something about water danger. The introduction of sensible legislation and regulation would clearly help, and we need more common sense in this area. The Marsden family have suffered a tragic loss, and they rightly hope and desire that no other family should suffer in such a manner.

Anne McGuire: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on securing this debate? In his customary way, he has raised an important matter, and I thank him for the opportunity to consider how we can improve safety for children at water attractions by raising the tragic case of Matthew Marsdena young two-year-old child who sadly died on 21 August 2004.
	First, I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in extending sympathy to Matthew's family on their tragic loss. Nothing, as my hon. Friend said, can take away the pain that Mathew's parents feel following the loss of their young son, who was just starting out in life. It is quite understandable that they wish others to learn from their terrible experience and suffering so that young lives are not cut short in a similar tragic accident in future. May I set out the background by looking at drowning rates in the United Kingdom? The risk of drowning is small, with a death rate of 0.8 per 100,000 deaths in the UK each year. However, as my hon. Friend identified, the risks to small children are significant. The latest figures from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents show that 131 children drowned in small volumes of water in the 11 years to December 2003, and that 90 of them were under five.
	Most of those accidents happened in garden ponds, water features and paddling pools in the vicinity of the children's own home or in a family environment. Water is highly attractive to children and even the shallowest of ponds can be lethal to the very young. Each and every one of those deaths is a terrible family tragedy. My noble Friend Lord Hunt wrote to my hon. Friend last year about the case. Matthew's drowning on holiday with his family at a caravan park was investigated first by the police, then by Gwynedd county council under health and safety legislation, as enforcement responsibility fell to the local authority, not to the Health and Safety Executive. Formal enforcement action was not taken but, following investigations, the caravan park has filled in the duck pond as a mark of respect to Matthew and his family.
	On the legal position, caravan park owners and operators, like any other responsible employer, must provide healthy and safe working conditions for their employees under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as my hon. Friend said. They have a responsibility, too, to protect members of the public from their work activities. In addition, they have a duty to carry out risk assessments under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
	That means that operators such as those at the holiday park have a duty to ensure that risks like those presented by the duck pond are properly assessed, managed and controlled. I fully understand that following such a tragic loss, there will be calls for the introduction of additional legal controls with the aim of preventing similar accidents. I regret, however, to advise my hon. Friend that I do not believe that new legislation is the answer.
	Under our existing health and safety legislative framework, it is for dutyholders to identify what their particular hazards and risks are and what precautions are necessary to deal with them in their own circumstances. Such flexibility is important because it enables judgments to be reached on what is appropriate and sensible in various circumstances. The legislative framework provides the freedom to devise solutions that satisfy safety goals in a way that is not prescriptive or bureaucratic. This is aimed at ensuring a proportionate responsea basic principle of good regulation. I do understand, however, that parents who have lost a child in such circumstances may feel that a proportionate response should, indeed, be more regulation.
	There are various types of water attraction, which my hon. Friend highlighted. Those include, for example, boating lakes, swimming pools, both public and domestic, reservoirs, lakes, canals, rivers, the seaside and marinas, as well as duck and garden ponds. Some are run by commercial businesses, some by charities and others by local authorities. Some are located in people's homes and gardens, and others are part of the fabric of our countryside and open to everyone.
	Just as there are many types of attraction, there is a wide range of safety precautions available. These include, for instance, fencing the edges or ensuring that they are gently sloping, flat or well defined, providing lifebelts, providing warning notices and information, and ensuring supervision by staff, parents or responsible adults. When these are attractions to which the public have access, it is for the operators to consider the available precautions and decide which are the most appropriate ones for them in the context of the risks. Of course, everyone has the responsibility to use them in a sensible manner.
	Sensible risk management will usually involve a combination of a number of precautions. Operators should be seeking to effectively manage their risks in their own particular circumstances, yet still allow the facilities to be enjoyed and appreciated by those using them. Tragically, there are no guarantees that trying to make water attractions inaccessible would eradicate risks to children. It is a sad fact that fencing, as my hon. Friend observed, can provide parents with a false sense of security, and accidents can still occur because parents think their children are safe. But fencing can be climbed by older children, and can become damaged and allow access to smaller children.
	Where there is any stretch of water, even the shallowest garden pond, there is risk for children, and everyone in a position of responsibility needs to be aware of the risks and take the necessary actions. This may include operators bringing the hazards to the attention of parents. New legislation would not be the answer to the problem. It would not be practical or desirable to try and fence and make inaccessible all ponds and stretches of water, or for some form of formal supervision to be required in all cases. As it is, the existing legislation requires dutyholders to exercise judgement on how best to reduce risks in a sensible way.
	Water is everywhere, and access to many attractions is open to individuals and families to enjoy as they think fit. It would not be possible to make canals, marinas and other water attractions inaccessible, but there are undoubtedly risks to children and others when visiting these attractions. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, risk is a part of everyday life and we cannot eliminate it all together. We certainly would not want to prevent people making use of and enjoying the countryside and seaside where they live or where they visit. We also would not want to require measures that are impractical and, in so doing, inadvertently force the closure of attractions that can be used and enjoyed safely.
	However, it is clear that we should do all that we can to try to minimise the risks of drowning to children, but our approach must be to ensure that current arrangements work as well as possible, that people are fully aware of the risks and how best to manage them and that people are clear about their responsibilities. Often, a combination of measures and responsibilities is needed to ensure that risks are properly managed. That could include fencing and supervision, but it may not be practical or even desirable in all cases.
	The Health and Safety Commission has said that it does not necessarily see new regulation as the solution to all problems, particularly when there are other means of achieving the same ends. Those who have such responsibilities are best placed to ensure that risks are sensibly managed and that the public are protected from harm. In this case, leisure site operators are best placed to ensure that the risks are sensibly managed and that the public are protected from serious harm. Where they fail to fulfil their legal responsibilities, they may be subject to enforcement action, including prosecution under health and safety law. I believe that the existing legislative framework is sufficient to provide for that.
	My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the various bodies involved in water safety, and I regret the difficulties that he had in trying to access some of the information that he needed. He will be aware that the national water safety forum was established following the Government's review into inland water safety, and the forum is endeavouring to bring together information about incidents, casualties and fatalities in water. I will therefore make sure that the information about Matthew Marsden's death will be passed to the forum and also ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about the difficulties that he faced are drawn to their attention.
	Finally, what I have said tonight will be no consolation at all to Matthew's parents. However, we should never cease to learn the lessons from tragedies such as this young child's. That case has only too sadly highlighted the risks to small children of water attractions and the need for those responsible to be alert to the safety measures that are needed. Although we can never totally remove risk from society, we can strive to ensure that people, especially children, live in a society that values them and fully provides for their safety. As a parent myself, I know that Matthew's family, and in particular his parents, may be disappointed by my response tonight, but I reiterate: legal change is not the answer in this case. Redoubled efforts by the Government, businesses and others to ensure risks are understood, well publicised, and sensibly managed are the way forward.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.